I am often asked which books I recommend for defending the reliability of the Gospels/Acts and Christianity in general, so here is my list. It is not exhaustive, but it will definitely give you a good start.
The categorized as “mandatory” are more basic, while some of those labeled as “recommended” or “supplementary” delve into more profound and scholarly content. Any item marked with a * can be accessed for free online as PDF files. A significant number of these works are downloadable from http://historicalapologetics.org, http://books.google.com, or http://archive.org.
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and(DVD)
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank TurekDVD and Mp4
Erik Manning is the creative force behind the YouTube channel Testify, which is an educational channel built to help inspire people’s confidence in the text of the New Testament and the truth of the Christian faith.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/CE-BLOG-COVER-Recommended-Books.jpg12562400Ty Unknownhttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngTy Unknown2024-05-27 08:00:002024-10-31 10:36:15Recommended Books on Historical Apologetics for The Gospels & Acts
Because Paul crisscrossed paths with many folks, some repeatedly, it’s quite enlightening to compare how these people are portrayed in the book of Acts with what Paul hints at in his own letters. Among these characters, Timothy stands out as a particularly intriguing figure.
In 1 Corinthians 4:17, Paul mentions sending Timothy, his “beloved and faithful child in the Lord,” to jog the Corinthians’ memory about Paul’s ways in Christ. Now, from this passage alone, it’s a bit tricky to figure out if Timothy was sent before the letter or with it. In 1 Corinthians 16:10-11, though, Paul makes it clear that Timothy was dispatched before the letter was penned. He talks about Timothy’s impending arrival as something distinct from when the Corinthians would receive the letter itself – “When Timothy comes, …”
Now, when you stack these two passages side by side, a puzzling question pops up. If Timothy was sent first, why didn’t he show up first? And if he did arrive first, why bother sending instructions afterward on how to welcome him?
The most sensible answer is that Timothy, even though sent ahead, must have taken a more roundabout route to Corinth. The quickest way from Ephesus, where Paul was writing, to Corinth would be by ship, covering the distance in a jiffy with a favorable wind. But, as we dig into Luke’s account in Acts 19:21-22, we discover that Timothy, when leaving Ephesus, opted for the overland route, traveling up through Macedonia.
We stumble upon these coincidences that weren’t orchestrated but fit together seamlessly. Paul’s letter doesn’t mention a word about Timothy’s trek through Macedonia, and Acts doesn’t bring up Paul’s letter. Yet, Acts offers the only sensible explanation for these offhand remarks Paul makes in his letter, creating this neat puzzle where the pieces just click into place.
But there’s more about Timothy. When Paul writes the church at Philippi, he says:
“I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be cheered by news of you. For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ. But you know Timothy’s proven worth, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Philippians 2:19-21).
In this passage, it’s pretty clear that the Philippians knew Timothy and had seen him working alongside Paul. The nifty part is how there’s this subtle and smooth connection between what’s written in Philippians and the story in the book of Acts. So, in Acts 16, Paul starts traveling with Timothy, a convert from around Lystra and Iconium. After that, the Acts story gets into Paul’s travels across Asia Minor to Troas and then Macedonia.
When they hit Philippi, the story dives into Paul’s missionary adventures, detailing his struggles and hardships. Acts 17 continues the journey, covering Paul’s move from Philippi to Thessalonica, where things get pretty heated, and he has to leave. Then comes this sneaky part: the brothers secretly send Paul and Silas to Berea at night, and when they get there, they hit up the Jewish synagogue. That’s when Timothy pops back into the picture:
“Then the brothers immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea, but Silas and Timothy remained there” (Acts 17:14).
So, even though Timothy wasn’t explicitly mentioned during the journey, Acts 17:10-15 shows that he was indeed rolling with Paul at Berea. Silas gets more spotlight in the story, but Acts hints that Paul had more buddies along, including the author himself. This revelation about Timothy being there in Berea fills in the gaps and explains how the Philippians knew about Timothy’s skills and saw him working hard with Paul, like a son with his father.
What’s interesting is that Acts doesn’t just say Timothy was in Philippi. You have to connect the dots by piecing together Timothy’s role from different mentions in Acts. It’s not like the author of Acts was trying to be all sneaky and create a link with Philippians. Instead, this connection adds weight to the idea that the author of Acts really knew Paul’s life inside out, including his friends and moves during that time.
But wait, there’s another nice example of an undesigned coincidence in this same passage. So, in Thessalonica, Paul’s ministry gets interrupted by a rowdy bunch of Gentiles riled up by the local Jews, prompting a quick escape with Silas for Berea (Acts 17:10). When the troublemakers catch wind that Paul’s still preaching in Berea, they show up, causing a ruckus. Paul has to skedaddle to Athens in a hurry, leaving Silas and Timothy behind (Acts 17:14). Now, Acts doesn’t spill the tea on why Paul left Silas and Timothy hanging. But then, 1 Thessalonians 3:1-5 gives us the missing piece:
“Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith…”
Turns out, under the circumstances, Paul sent Timothy back to Thessalonica to check on the folks there and report back while Paul was busy in Athens. This neatly clears up the unexplained bit in Acts, making sense of the separation from Silas and Timothy.
Timothy’s Mixed Upbringing
Here’s another neat example of undesigned coincidences, from Paul’s second letter to Timothy, where describes Timothy rather than mentioning his travels:
“…and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” (2 Timothy 3:15)
Clearly, Paul’s talking about the Jewish scriptures here, but he doesn’t give any hint as to how Timothy, who wasn’t circumcised until after his conversion as a young man (as mentioned in Acts 16:3), got to know them. The missing piece of information falls into place when we check out Acts 16:1:
“Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek.”
Seems like Timothy’s Greek dad wasn’t on board with the whole circumcision thing. But his Jewish mother made sure he got schooled in the scriptures of her people. Paul even names his mother and grandmother in 2 Timothy 1:5.
But there’s more! In 2 Timothy 3:10-11, Paul talks about how Timothy followed his teachings, behavior, and experiences, especially the tough times in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. Now, the Antioch here isn’t the famous one in Syria, but a different one in Pisidia. Acts 13 in the Bible says that Paul and Barnabas got into trouble there, stirred up by the locals. They had to skip town and faced more problems in Iconium, so they moved on to Lystra and Derbe.
In Acts 14, it mentions Paul getting stoned and dragged out of the city by angry folks from Antioch and Iconium. This lines up perfectly with what Paul mentions in 2 Timothy 3:10-11 about the persecutions he faced in Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra. It matches not only in the cities but also in the order Paul talks about them.
Here’s another cool tidbit: In Acts, Lystra and Derbe are often mentioned together, just like in 2 Timothy. But, interestingly, Paul doesn’t face any troubles in Derbe, and sure enough, it’s not mentioned in the list of persecutions in 2 Timothy. So, there’s a perfect match between what Paul says and what happened in Acts.
Now, Paul also implies that Timothy saw or at least knows about these persecutions. Acts backs this up. In Acts 15:36, it says Paul went on a second journey to check on the folks he converted during the first trip. In Acts 16:1-2, we find out that Timothy, a disciple from Lystra, was well-regarded in the community. This suggests that Timothy might have been converted during Paul’s earlier visit when all the tough times were going down. So, it looks like Timothy was there, or at least very aware of what Paul went through in those cities.
Does the fact that these passages don’t match up exactly, and they’re scattered throughout without sounding alike, make you think someone’s trying to trick us? Or does each one just fit naturally where it is? If it’s the latter, it’s pretty unlikely that someone cooked up these connections on purpose. These accounts sound like what we would expect if different people, at different times and places, are sharing different parts of the same story.
Think about it this way: Imagine someone trying to copy an important document, but they change a few words here and there to make it seem original. We can see this happening with some writings from the second century, like the “Gospel of Peter,” where they use phrases almost identical to ones found in well-known Gospels to make their writing seem legit:
“And one of them brought a crown of thorns and put it on the head of the Lord.” (similar to Mark 15:17)
“And they brought two malefactors, and they crucified the Lord between them.” (similar to Luke 23:32-33)
“And in that hour the veil of the temple in Jerusalem was rent in twain.” (similar to Mark 15:38)
“But who shall roll away for us the stone …?” (similar to Mark 16:3)
“Whom seek ye? Him that was crucified? He is risen and gone.” (similar to Mark 16:6)
Here, the similarities are on purpose to make it seem real. But when we look at Acts and the Pauline letters, they’re not like that. They don’t match word for word, and they’re connected in more subtle ways. This makes it pretty impressive evidence that they’re telling us the truth about what really happened, without needing to fake anything.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek(mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truthmp3 by Frank Turek
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD,Mp3, andMp4)
Erik Manning is the creative force behind the YouTube channel Testify, which is an educational channel built to help inspire people’s confidence in the text of the New Testament and the truth of the Christian faith.
On the evening of April 2, 1968, a Muslim bus mechanic was working across the street from St. Mary’s Coptic Church in Zeitoun, a district of Cairo, Egypt. Suddenly, something on the roof of St. Mary’s got his attention: a figure that looked like a young woman. The mechanic pointed it out to a few people nearby who saw the same thing. Concerned that the young lady was about to commit suicide, they called the police. A crowd gathered around the church to watch. Then, after just a few minutes, the woman suddenly vanished. As you can imagine, this got people talking.
At first the police tried to explain things away, saying it was just some light reflecting in a strange way from a street light – but many weren’t persuaded. A week later the female figure appeared on the roof again. The appearance of the woman lasted for a few minutes and then disappeared. Some people began to connect the dots: This is St. Mary’s church. The church is believed to be one of the locations that Jesus’ family stayed during their flight to Egypt. We’re seeing a shining female figure on the roof. Sure this must be the Mother of Jesus!
From there the appearances began to happen more frequently, at times lasting for hours. In some reports, the apparition appeared to be bowing toward the cross atop the church or blessing onlookers on the street below. Some of the faithful who came to tour the holy site reported to be healed of illnesses. The Coptic Orthodox Pope appointed a committee of high-ranking priests and bishops to investigate. On May 4th, the church issued an official statement confirming the apparitions as genuine.
The apparitions were witnessed by the Egyptian President. Some were recorded on film by newspaper photographers and Egyptian television. Police investigations found no apparent explanation. No device was found within a radius of fifteen miles capable of projecting the image, and many photos were taken of the alleged apparition from independent sources. With no alternative explanation and approval from religious and political leaders, the Egyptian government accepted the apparitions as true.
ARE APPARITIONS LIKE RESURRECTION APPEARANCES?
So why am I talking about the Marian apparitions of Zeitoun? It’s because scholars like Dale Allison and Bart Ehrman attempt to parallel these appearances with Jesus’ resurrection appearances. In fact, Allison says that they are in some ways better evidenced and yet he remains agnostic about them. Allison writes:
“Our knowledge of what happened in the days after Good Friday is depressingly sparse over and against our knowledge of what happened in Zeitoun. With respect to the latter, we have interviews with multiple eye-witnesses. We have photographs. We have on-the-spot, as-it-unfolded journalistic reports from religious and irreligious. We have a statement from an investigative committee. We have none of this, by contrast, with respect to Jesus’ resurrection, only a lamentable paucity of evidence and lack of detail at every turn. One wonders how, if we cannot solve the puzzle of Zeitoun, about which we know so much, we can solve the puzzle that is Jesus’ resurrection, about which we know so little.”
Bart Ehrman mostly agrees with Allison. He seemingly points out some inconsistency among resurrection apologists like William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, writing:
“it is striking and worth noting that typically believers in one religious tradition often insist on the “evidence” for the miracles that support their views and completely discount the “evidence” for miracles attested in some other religious tradition, even though, at the end of the day, it is the same kind of evidence (for example, eyewitness testimony) and may be of even greater abundance. Protestant apologists interested in “proving” that Jesus was raised from the dead rarely show any interest in applying their finely honed historical talents to the exalted Blessed Virgin Mary”
(How Jesus Became God) Ehrman doesn’t call them out by name, but these three prominent resurrection apologists are all committed Baptists.
When an Emailer asked about the parallel between Marian appearances and Jesus’ post-mortem appearances, Dr. Craig had his colleague Mike Licona respond to the reader’s question. Licona wrote:[i]
“In my debates with Ehrman, when he has raised the topic of Marian apparitions, I have responded that I do not doubt that the recipients saw something. What they saw is what I question. Elliot Miller and Kenneth Samples co-authored the book The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary. In this book, they discuss the three major accounts of Marian apparitions: Lourdes, France; Fatima, Portugal; and Medjugorje, (mud·joo·jor·jee) Croatia. I know Samples personally. He has interviewed several of the seers to whom Mary has appeared in Medjugorje. Although Samples is a Christian whose Protestant theology does not incline him to believe that Mary has appeared to others, he is convinced that these seers have seen a spirit being. In fact, I had an opportunity to inquire further of Samples on the matter. He told me that several of the seers in Medjugorje continued to have visions of Mary. In fact, he was with one of the seers while he was experiencing such a vision, although no one else in the room saw her. Samples told me he asked the seer if Mary had ever spoken to him. The seer said she had, recommending a specific book which the seer was to read. When Samples looked up the title of the book, it was occultic. This led him to believe that a demonic spirit is what is appearing to the seers.”
I’m sure the “it’s the devil” hypothesis will offend Catholics and Orthodox Christians. I’d bet that Ehrman would be content to let them fight it out amongst themselves. Pitting Catholics vs. Protestants is a classic move made by skeptics going back to the Deist Controversy in the 17th and 18th century. Rather than denying the evidence, Licona refers to Samples’ theological argument, which seems to be based on some personal anecdotes and doctrinal inferences.
Even if you’re theologically opposed to the veneration of Mary, this evil spirit hypothesis is probably giving the devil more credit than due. While I’m a settled Protestant, I’m not automatically inclined to say that all Marian apparitions are either delusions, hoaxes or demonic because of my prior theological commitments. With enough evidence, my mind could be changed. But I don’t think Marian apparitions come anywhere near what we have for the resurrection. It’s more of an apples and oranges comparison.
WHAT WOULD BE EVIDENCE OF MARIAN APPARIATIONS?
What would convince me of Marian apparitions? Let’s think about it. Imagine if Mary appeared to a dozen people and ate several meals with them, they touched her hands, and she conversed with them. Now also suppose this group of twelve people were all Protestants, living in a country where converting to Catholicism could result in their arrest, torture, or death. That would move me a bit closer to accepting them.
But there’s a big problem. No one who has seen an apparition of Mary knew Mary before she died. There’s a tradition that she appeared to James the Son of Zebedee in Spain in 40 AD, but the evidence for this tradition is thin and Mary was probably still alive at that time. Those who believe in this appearance claim that she was supernaturally present in two places at once. The first recorded Marian apparition approved by the Catholic church was in 1555. Obviously Mary hasn’t been known by anyone personally for centuries, so there’s always at least the possibility that someone could be hoaxing these people in this proposed scenario.
People laughed when Robert Greg Cavin came up with his “twin brother” theory to explain away the resurrection. But Cavin had to come up with a theory to explain why the disciples thought they saw the risen Jesus, as they knew what Jesus looked like. They had hung out with him for three years.
But some might say that perhaps what the apostles saw was something like what people saw in Zeitoun. Maybe they experienced something like a bright light on a rooftop that they mistook to be Jesus and enthusiasm took its course from there. The problem with that is we can’t say that if we take the gospel accounts seriously. For they report multisensory group appearances extended across 40 days. These appearances involved conversations with Jesus, touching his wounds, and eating fish together. These aren’t the kinds of things you can be mistaken about.
Ehrman and Allison think that these accounts are embellished and unreliable, and so this is why they run this weak parallel. It’s not that they don’t think the disciples experienced appearances of Jesus of some sort. They do. This is because of what Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 15 that Peter, the Twelve, Paul, James and an unnamed 500 brothers all claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. But what the appearances were like isn’t something Paul goes into detail about. If the best evidence we have for the resurrection is the creed that Paul quotes to the Corinthians, then we’re left with a pretty vague report. Or to use Allison’s words, “depressingly sparse”. Vague appearances that were overinterpreted by the disciples would be consistent with the creed in 1 Corinthians 15.
If we’re going to defend the resurrection, we’re going to need to defend the detailed reports contained in the Gospels are at least what the early disciples reported. But because Licona will only use facts that 90% + of scholars agree upon — which include the likes of Allison and Ehrman — he’s not able to do that. In his big book on the resurrection, Licona writes:
“We may affirm with great confidence that Peter had such an experience in an individual setting, and we will see that the same may be said of an adversary of the church named Paul. We may likewise affirm that there was at least one occasion when a group of Jesus’ followers including “the Twelve” had such an experience. Did other experiences reported by the Gospels occur as well, such as the appearances to the women, Thomas, the Emmaus disciples, and the multiple group appearances reported by the tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 and John? Where did these experiences occur? Historians may be going beyond what the data warrants in assigning a verdict with much confidence to these questions.”
The Resurrection of Jesus, A New Historiographical Approach, Kindle location 3758
This is why I’m not a fan of the minimal facts approach. If we are willing to say that the appearances to the Emmaus disciples or Thomas are impossible to know historically because that’s what the scholarly consensus allows us to say is a minimal fact, then there’s a massive problem. But if we look at the Gospels closely and more fairly, I think we can know with some confidence that they are scrupulous, habitually honest and close up to the facts. They were not the kind of authors who would be prone to embellish things. Nor are they likely to be schizophrenic authors, showing all these signs of truthful testimony, but suddenly at other times consider themselves free to invent and change facts.
And so it looks like they recorded what was really originally claimed by witnesses about Jesus’ resurrection. And this was the apostles’ claim in the midst of persecution, so it would be unlikely that they were fudging the truth. See my playlist on the reliability of the Gospels for more.
So getting back to Marian apparitions. I don’t think it’s at all impossible to have evidence that has strong weight for Marian claims. Let’s suppose that two Protestants who had previously publicly criticized Marian doctrine both claimed at the same time to have seen a vision of a woman claiming to be Mary telling them that she was taken bodily into heaven. Neither had a prior history of mental illness. They destroyed their own Protestant careers and endangered their lives by claiming this.
Furthermore, suppose the woman in question instructed them to call each other and ask each other, “Did you have any strange experience in the last 24 hours?” And they independently did this. That would be evidence of the Marian claims, but it wouldn’t exactly be an analogy to Jesus’ appearances on earth. It would perhaps be more analogous to the conversion of Paul and James. Oddly enough, Dale Allison says nothing short of Mary appearing to him would convince him. I don’t think our standards need to be that absurdly high.
This whole Marian apparition analogy just doesn’t work when one takes a more maximal data approach to the Gospels. I might not be able to explain all Marian apparitions, but they’re not the same as the resurrection appearances in the Gospels. At best they make me say “huh. Maybe the world is a weirder place than I thought, and I don’t really know what to make of this.” But because there seems to be some vagueness about what these apparitions mean or where they originate from I don’t feel super inclined to believe them.
Erik is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Blog-1-cover_-2.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2023-01-09 08:00:292024-10-31 15:01:09Appearances Of Mary Vs. Jesus’ Resurrection Appearances
From working in public apologetics ministry for a few years now, one common mistake I see from Christians struggling with their faith is that they try and prematurely flex their apologetic muscles by spending tons of time listening to atheist YouTubers, podcasts or reading blogs but they don’t get the bulk of the Christian evidences strong under their belt first. When they come across a few things that stump them, they get troubled, anxious, or even set aside their faith altogether. This is falling prey to what the great English logician Richard Whately called “the fallacy of objections.”
Whately defined the fallacy of objections[i] as “showing that there are objections against some plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it should be rejected; when that which ought to have been proved is, that there are more, or stronger objections, against the receiving than the rejecting of it.”
I understand that you want to mitigate against your biases by listening to the other side. However, until you yourself can articulate a robust, positive case for Christianity, I don’t recommend that you do that. At all.
If the Bible is correct by describing faith as a “precious” thing (2 Peter 1:1[ii]) and you’re throwing your weak faith into the fires of criticism without understanding the shape of the argumentative landscape first, you’re not being “wise” by trying to minimize your biases, you’re being careless. And no, I’m not saying you should Pascal’s Wager yourself into faith or “lower the epistemic bar”, either. But I will say that you are not performing your duty of inquiry properly and you’re going to end up being another statistic, or worse, if you’re not cautious.
Regarding the Fallacy of Objections, Whately went on to write:
“This is the main, and almost universal Fallacy of anti-christians; and is that of which a young Christian should be first and principally warned. They find numerous ‘objections’ against various parts of Scripture; to some of which no satisfactory answer can be given; and the incautious hearer is apt, while his attention is fixed on these, to forget that there are infinitely more, and stronger objections against the supposition, that the Christian Religion is of human origin; and that where we cannot answer all objections, we are bound, in reason and in candour, to adopt the hypothesis which labours under the least. That the case is as I have stated, I am authorized to assume, from this circumstance,—that no complete and consistent account has ever been given of the manner in which the Christian Religion, supposing it a human contrivance, could have arisen and prevailed as it did. And yet this may obviously be demanded with the utmost fairness of those who deny its divine origin. The Religion exists; that is the phenomenon. Those who will not allow it to have come from God, are bound to solve the phenomenon on some other hypothesis less open to objections. They are not, indeed, called on to prove that it actually did arise in this or that way; but to suggest (consistently with acknowledged facts) some probable way in which it may have arisen, reconcilable with all the circumstances of the case. That infidels have never done this, though they have had 1800 years to try, amounts to a confession, that no such hypothesis can be devised, which will not be open to greater objections than lie against Christianity.”
Richard Whately, Elements of Logic, 9th ed.[iii] (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, & Dyer, 1870), pp. 144-45.
Whately is spot on. The reason why I can read Bart Ehrman books, listen to secular historical Jesus classes online, or watch YouTube counter-apologists and be untroubled isn’t simply because I’m just so biased towards Christianity but because I have, for the most part, firmly in place the bulk of the evidence on the subject. Furthermore, I’m aware that everything doesn’t depend on whether I can answer this or that objection when I happen to stumble on something novel.
For example, over and over again, I have seen arguments against the Gospels be based on an over-reading, an argument from silence, or ignoring the possibility of real, independent access to events etc. I also know that even if I don’t know why Jesus said X or Leviticus says Y, or how to resolve that apparent contradiction, it doesn’t mean that my entire edifice is collapsing. The evidence for Christianity is a lot tougher than that, as Whately indicates. The same kind of thing holds true for many well-established scientific theories. We don’t toss out a good theory based on some counter evidence we don’t quite understand yet.
If you are easily shaken and troubled by pop counter-apologists online (and I don’t care if they have a PhD and have published dozens of books), here’s my advice: Stop listening to them. At least for a season. Learn the positive case for Christianity first. And here I’m not talking about a handful of philosophical arguments for the existence of God and some minimal facts argument for the resurrection.
At this point, I’m sure the skeptics would say that I’m just circling the wagons and saying “indoctrinate” yourself first. But that’s just not true. What I’m saying is this: Don’t act like “if Christianity is true, it can take the heat.” Christianity can take the heat, but an unprepared mind can’t. And investigation of the evidence for Christianity does not mean digging into everything anyone has ever said about or against it and having to give an answer. Skeptics can confidently assert a ton of (ultimately unpersuasive) objections as though they were real problems. But think about your approach to other issues. According to some theories, Jesus was invented by the Romans to pacify the people into being OK with slavery. How thoroughly do you investigate the “hoax” side of that argument? Wouldn’t an good informed atheist who believes in the historicity of Jesus recommend someone uninformed and confused about this issue read a good book or two on the existence of Jesus first before they get too muddled? Of course they would.
Again, once you have the bulk of the Christian evidences in place and you understand what the general argumentative landscape looks like, you don’t need to waste your precious time looking into everything that every dude with an internet connection and some video editing software has said against it. And when you stumble across them, you should be able to see the predictable patterns their arguments fall into.
In this context the words of George Horne, another 18th apologist, has some sage advice:
In the thirty sections of their pamphlet, they have produced a list of difficulties to be met with in reading the Old and New Testament. Had I been aware of their design, I could have enriched the collection with many more, at least as good, if not a little better. But they have compiled, I dare say, what they deemed the best, and, in their own opinion, presented us with the essence of infidelity in a thumb-phial, the very fumes of which, on drawing the cork, are to strike the bench of bishops dead at once. Let not the unlearned Christian be alarmed, “as though some strange thing had happened to him,” and modern philosophy had discovered arguments to demolish religion, never heard of before. The old ornaments of deism have been “broken off” upon this occasion, “and cast into the fire, and there came out this calf.” These same difficulties have been again and again urged and discussed in public; again and again weighed and considered by learned and sensible men, of the laity as well as the clergy, who have by no means been induced by them to renounce their faith…Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of that kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.And as people in general, for one reason or another, like short objections better than long answers, in this mode of disputation (if it can be styled such) the odds must ever be against us; and we must be content with those for our friends who have honesty and erudition, candor and patience, to study both sides of the question.—Be it so.
George Horne, Letters on Infidelity
As Horne implies, Christians have answered the same tired objections over and over, yet that won’t stop an “exvangelical” with a TikTok or YouTube account from saying it triumphantly as if no one has ever responded to it before. Furthermore, answering objections often takes a lot longer than a short statement of them, even if the objections themselves are based upon “pertness and ignorance.”
And finally, for goodness’ sakes, stop looking at all apologists as defense attorneys or God’s public relations firm doing “damage control.” This is what many counter-apologists have claimed, but it just poisons the well. Maybe consider that at least some apologists are defending their faith after scrutinizing it for years; they are not just trying to defend their predetermined conclusion and soothe their cognitive biases. Don’t fall for this bulveristic, pseudo-psychoanalytical trash. According to the website Logically Fallacious[iv], bulverism is “the assumption and assertion that an argument is flawed or false because of the arguer’s suspected motives, social identity, or other characteristic associated with the arguer’s identity.”
The more apt parallel for a good apologist is to an investigative journalist, reporting for popular consumption the results of a fair and balanced inquiry. These same skeptics often also seem to think that honesty in investigation requires that we start off in disbelief. In response to that, here’s one last awesome quote from another one of those amazing 18th-century apologists, John Leland:
It is not necessary to a just inquiry into doctrines or facts, that a man should be absolutely indifferent to them before he begins that inquiry, much less that he should actually disbelieve them; as if he must necessarily commence atheist, before he can fairly examine into the proofs of the existence of God. It is sufficient to a candid examination, that a man applieth himself to it with a mind open to conviction, and a disposition to embrace truth on which side soever it shall appear, and to receive the evidence that shall arise in the course of the trial. And if the inquiry relateth to principles in which we have been instructed, then, supposing those principles to be in themselves rational and well founded, it may well happen, that, in inquiring into the grounds of them, a fair examination may be carried on without seeing cause to disbelieve, or doubt of them through the whole course of the enquiry; which in that case will end in a fuller conviction of them than before.
A View of the Principal Deistical Writers, 1837 edition, p. 129
Leland hits the nail on the head. If you listen to many of the counter apologists, it’s as if they’re saying that the Christian is obligated, in the name of fairness and honest examination, to set aside their faith while looking into it and that the questioner should spend most of their time listening to their negative case. (And often they themselves cannot give you a steelman argument for Christianity upon request.) But honest inquiry and the acquisition of knowledge can continue while still following Jesus. Setting aside your faith while you are investigating it would be a crazy thing to do if Christianity is true. Consider that you might have a lot more evidence for Christianity than you may realize that you’re just not recognizing.
Finally, If you don’t know what the evidence looks like, ask me or others and I can recommend some resources. Avail yourself of talkaboutdoubts.com [v]and talk to some scholars and experts 1-on-1. Find a community of apologists more experienced than yourself.
Then you can consider diving into the counter apologists’ material, one resource at a time, one objection at a time, rather than overwhelming yourself. Otherwise, consider that you’re probably being like an overconfident fool who, after learning a few fighting moves, tries to jump in the ring with more experienced fighters. You’re going to look foolish and get hurt.
Now again, lest I be misunderstood, I am speaking to less experienced Christians. For the more seasoned believer, I think that we should let the critics speak. Often they are in a good place to discover flaws in our own reasoning, which may be invisible to us. We ignore them at our peril. I believe in that and practice that.
We should be able to identify who the best critics against our view are and regularly seek out what they have to say. It is wise to step outside your echo chamber and recognize that smart people can argue in good faith and yet disagree with you. But I wouldn’t throw a novice a Bart Ehrman or a Sam Harris book and say “sink or swim, dude.” If one is going to read atheist apologists, one should read them with guidance from people who really do know how to answer them. But our highest priority should be showing the untrained believer how much good evidence there is for Christianity.
Erik Manning is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
Does John’s Gospel give us a much higher view of Jesus than what we find in Matthew, Mark and Luke? Bart Ehrman certainly thinks so. He says:
If Jesus went around Galilee proclaiming himself to be a divine being sent from God…could anything else that he might say be so breath-taking and thunderously important? And yet none of these earlier sources says any such thing about him. Did they (all of them!) just decide not to mention the one thing that was most significant about Jesus? Almost certainly the divine self-claims in John are not historical.
How Jesus Became God p 125
In other places, Ehrman admits that the Synoptic Gospels don’t depict Jesus as a mere man. But he isn’t pre-existent and he isn’t the same as the God of Israel. Ehrman instead argues that Jesus’ ‘divinity’ was something that came into being after his resurrection. Only then did his disciples begin giving Jesus honors he never claimed for himself.
The big problem here is that Ehrman is making an argument from silence, as I discussed in a previous post. But the other problem is that the claim that Jesus isn’t depicted as Yahweh in the Synoptic Gospels simply isn’t true. Jesus speaks and acts very much like the God of the Jewish Scriptures. Let’s take a look at one of my favorite examples: The Mount of Transfiguration. This example was brought to my attention by Catholic NT scholar Brant Pitre. This miracle takes place in all three of the Synoptics, but I’ll be focusing on Mark’s version:
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them, and his garments became glistening, intensely white, as no fuller on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses; and they were talking to Jesus. And Peter said to Jesus, “Master, it is well that we are here; let us make three booths, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” For he did not know what to say, for they were exceedingly afraid. And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” And suddenly looking around they no longer saw any one with them but Jesus only. And as they were coming down the mountain, he charged them to tell no one what they had seen, until the Son of Man should have risen from the dead.
Mark 9:2-9
Something very weird is going on here. What’s up with Moses and Elijah appearing on the mountain with Jesus? Why is it specifically these two guys and not, say, Abraham, Noah or David? The answer I heard in Bible college was that Moses represented the Law, the first five books of the Bible, and Elijah represented the Prophets, the second major part of the Jewish Scriptures. The symbolism seems straightforward enough, I suppose. But it never felt very satisfying.
JESUS THE GLORY OF GOD
Pitre points out a better explanation for why Moses and Elijah appear, one more deeply rooted in the Old Testament. If you’ve read the Old Testament, you know that both Moses and Elijah experience theophanies—that is, appearances of God—in which God comes to them on a mountain and reveals his glory. However, neither Moses nor Elijah can see God’s face.
Let’s look at some passages: In Exodus 33:18-23 Moses said, “I beg you, show me your glory.” And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim before you my name ‘The LORD’; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live.” And the LORD said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand upon the rock; and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen.”
Now let’s look at 1 Kings 19:9-13: And there he [Elijah] came to a cave, and lodged there; and behold, the word of the LORD came to him…. And he said, “Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord.” And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave.
A couple of things stand out here. Both of these experiences happen on Mount Sinai, which is a mount of divine revelation. Notice also that neither Moses nor Elijah were allowed to look at God. Despite hearing him and seeing manifestations of his power, they cannot see his face.
What does all of this have to do with the Transfiguration? You see, on the mountain of the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah are finally allowed to see what they couldn’t see during their earthly lives: the unveiled face of God. What makes this possible? The God who appeared to them on Mount Sinai has now become a man. Jesus is God with a human face. Is your mind blown just a bit yet?
PLURALITY IN THE GODHEAD
Also, notice that in the same way that God descends upon Mount Sinai in a cloud and speaks to Moses and the people (Exodus 19:16), so now “a cloud” covers Jesus on the mountain of the Transfiguration and a voice says: “This is my beloved Son; listen to him” (Mark 9:7). The voice reveals Jesus’s true identity. Not only does Jesus speak and act as if he is God, but God speaks and acts as if Jesus is his divine Son. Here then we see a plurality of persons in the one God. On the Mount of Transfiguration, the apostles see that there is both God the Father and God the Son.
And this concept of the unseen Yahweh and the seen Yahweh isn’t merely a New Testament idea. It’s rooted in the Old Testament. You see, there’s a recurring paradox throughout the Jewish Scriptures. Remember that God says to Moses “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live,” (Exodus 33:20). But multiple people in the Old Testament do see God and live! Let’s look at a few examples.
For starters, we have Jacob. Genesis 32:20 says “So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered.”
There’s also Gideon: Judges 6:22 reads: “Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the Lord. And Gideon said, “Alas, O Lord God! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face.”
And there’s Samson’s parents: “The angel of the LORD did not appear again to Manoah and his wife. Then Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God” (Judges 13:21,22).
These are all cases where individuals are scared to death because they’ve come face-to-face with God and yet their lives have been spared. Notice that these people saw the face of the angel of Yahweh. Ah, so it’s the Angel of the LORD who appears as the seen Yahweh. It is through the Angel of Yahweh that men can look on God’s face and still live.
And just as God speaks to Jesus on the Mountain, we see conversation apparently happening within the Godhead in the Old Testament. For example, Zechariah 1:11-13 says: Then they spoke to the angel of the LORD who was standing among the myrtle trees, “We have patrolled the earth, and lo, the whole earth remains at peace.” Then the angel of the LORD said, “O LORD of hosts, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with which you have been angry these seventy years?” Then the LORD replied with gracious and comforting words to the angel who talked with Me.
Here the Angel of the LORD plays the role of mediator, the same role Jesus fulfills in the NT. (Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25, 1 John 2:2) Also, note Jacob’s blessing of the sons of Joseph in Genesis 48:15-16: “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, may he bless the boys.” This case of Hebrew parallelism suggests that “the angel” and “God” are to be taken as the same person.
Moreover, check out Judges 2:1-2, where the angel of the Lord says, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers…” Jude 5 says that: “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.”Though a minority of manuscripts read κύριος instead of Ἰησοῦς, this is of little interpretive significance since the preceding verse identifies Jesus as “our only Master and Lord.”
The point here is that Ehrman is wrong. Jesus is portrayed as Yahweh in the Synoptic Gospels, but in a very Jewish way, and one that includes a plurality within the Godhead found in the Old Testament. And we have multiple lines of evidence that what is recorded in the Synoptics is based on eyewitness testimony. What happened on the Mount of Transfiguration isn’t a cunningly devised fable. See my playlist on the historical reliability of the Gospels for more.
Erik is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Blog-1-cover_-1.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2022-08-15 08:00:192024-11-01 12:39:06What You Might’ve Missed About the Mount of Transfiguration
How did Jesus see himself? As we learn about Jesus’ Jewish context in the first century, we find that he made some staggering claims. First of all, Jesus spoke constantly about God’s kingdom. The phrase kingdom of God or kingdom of heaven appears more than 100 times in the Gospels. Jesus begins his ministry in Mark by saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is near.” (Mark 1:15)
Okay, so what’s the big deal about that? And what does Jesus mean when he says the kingdom of God is “near”? Jesus was assuming that his audience would pick up on the ideas he was laying down. When a first century Jew heard the phrase “the kingdom of God,” their minds likely turned to a very specific prophecy in Daniel 2. Let’s provide some context before reading the prophecy. Daniel 2 describes King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of an impressive statue crafted from four precious metals. As the dream unfolds, a large mountain grows from a mysterious stone, destroying the statue.
JESUS AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Let’s read the prophecy. Daniel 2:31-35 says:
“You, O king, were watching and behold, there was a single great statue; that statue, which was large and of extraordinary radiance, was standing in front of you, and its appearance was awesome. The head of that statue was made of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, and its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. You continued watching until a stone was broken off without hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed to pieces all at the same time, and they were like chaff from the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away so that not a trace of them was found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the entire earth.”
The four parts of the statue represent four pagan empires, beginning with the Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar is told by Daniel that he is the head of gold. Additionally, he tells him that a second kingdom inferior to Babylon will follow after him, symbolized by silver, and a third kingdom by bronze. Eventually, a fourth kingdom emerges that is initially strong like iron, but gradually weakens, as if it were a mixture of iron and clay. Note that the fifth kingdom — God’s kingdom — occurs during the time of the fourth kingdom (Daniel 2.26-43).
Here’s Daniel 2:44-45:
“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. Just as you saw that a stone was broken off from the mountain without hands, and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold, the great God has made known to the king what will take place in the future; so the dream is certain and its interpretation is trustworthy.”
Daniel explains that the four majestic beasts refer to four kings who arise from the earth. (7:17) After the appearance of four beasts, a heavenly “son of man” appears who seems to share divine honors. Then Daniel 7:9, 13-14 says: “I kept looking until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire….“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Honor, and a kingdom, So that all the peoples, nations, and populations of all languages Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.”
This Son of Man is the king of the fifth kingdom, God’s eternal kingdom. Think about what Jesus is saying in the Gospels. He speaks of God’s kingdom. Then he declares that he is the Son of Man, the ruler of the kingdom that would come during the Roman Empire. An attentive first century Jew would understand that he is claiming he is the long-awaited Messiah who will end the reign of these beastly kingdoms on earth.
JESUS, THE “CUT OFF” MESSIAH
Jesus applies one more prophecy in Daniel to himself. According to him, the Son of Man must be handed over to the authorities and put to death. (Mark 8.31-32) Where does Jesus get this idea from? In a rather bizarre passage, Daniel 9 describes the Messiah being executed. Here’s Daniel 9:24-27:
“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the wrongdoing, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place. So you are to know and understand that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with streets and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come the one who makes desolate, until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, gushes forth on the one who makes desolate.”
There has been much ink spilled over this very difficult section of Scripture. For this video, I’m choosing to limit myself to three reasons why the passage has been interpreted as referring not only to the work of the Messiah, but when he would arrive. In the prophecy, 490 years, or about 70 weeks of time, will pass between Jerusalem’s restoration and the coming of the Messiah. The phrase cut off implies that this Messiah will die. Jesus treats the Son of Man in Daniel 7 and the Messiah in Daniel 9 as one person. Additionally, the prophecy links the death of the Messiah with the destruction of the city and sanctuary, meaning Jerusalem and the Temple . As a result, animal sacrifices will cease. Jesus himself mentions the abomination of desolation coming during his Olivet Discourse and predicts that Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed. Let’s now look at the dates for this astonishing prediction.
JESUS CAME RIGHT ON TIME
Many commentators believe that the “sending forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” happened when the Persian King Artaxerxes commanded the Temple to be rebuilt in 457 BC. (Ezra 7) From there there’s the seventy weeks of years, which equals 490 years. That’s 33 AD, that’s the year many scholars believe Jesus was crucified! This is when Daniel says Messiah will be cut off. And then by 70 AD the city and sanctuary were destroyed.
You don’t have to trust my math. Let’s look at what the Jewish historian Josephus had to say: “We are convinced…that Daniel spoke with God, for he did not only prophesy about future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the time at which these would come to pass.” (Antiquities 10.267-68)
And here’s the French mathematician Blaise Pascal. (You know…the guy who came up with probability theory): “One must be bold to predict the same thing in so many ways. It was necessary that the four idolatrous or pagan monarchies, the end of the kingdom of Judah, and the seventy weeks, should happen at the same time, and all this before the second temple was destroyed.” (Pensees 11.709)
Scholars debate the exact dates of this prophecy, but regardless of how one calculates them, the 490 years between the restoration of Jerusalem and the coming of the Messiah occurred before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. The prophecy of Daniel has to be fulfilled in the first century.
Summing up, this background from Daniel gives us a glimpse into what many Jewish people in the first century longed for. Their hope was in the coming of God’s kingdom and the messianic Son of Man. Furthermore, this data explains why Josephus, writing after the destruction of the Temple, is so surprised by Daniel’s predictions. It also explains why a first-century Jew like Jesus could describe his own coming death-along with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple-as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Daniel did more than prophesy that the Messiah would come; he also predicted when he would come, what would happen to him, and what would happen to Jerusalem and its Temple. And it came to pass. During the first century. 2,000 years ago. Jesus of Nazareth, the proclaimer of God’s Kingdom and the Son of Man’s coming, was crucified 490 years after Jerusalem was restored by King Artaxerxes. This is rather stunning. The fulfillment of the prophecy goes to show that Jesus wasn’t a liar or a lunatic. He’s the long-awaited Messiah who came just when Daniel predicted.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and(DVD)
Erik is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Blog-1-cover_.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2022-07-06 08:00:512024-11-01 12:55:35Daniel Prophesied the Timing Of The Messiah
Los escépticos dicen que los evangelios están plagados de contradicciones y que, por tanto, no son fuentes históricas fiables. Y estos mismos escépticos dicen que algunas de estas contradicciones son francamente absurdas. Por ejemplo, el erudito agnóstico del NT Bart Ehrman señala una de sus contradicciones bíblicas favoritas en su exitoso libro, Jesus, Interrupted (Jesús, interrumpido).
Una de mis aparentes discrepancias favoritas -he leído a Juan durante años sin darme cuenta de lo extraña que es esta- aparece en el “Discurso de despedida” de Jesús, el último discurso que Jesús dirige a sus discípulos, en su última comida con ellos, que ocupa todos los capítulos 13 a 17 del Evangelio según Juan. En Juan 13:36, Pedro le dice a Jesús: “Señor, ¿a dónde vas?”. Unos versos después, Tomás dice: “Señor, no sabemos a dónde vas” (Juan 14:5). Y unos minutos más tarde, en la misma comida, Jesús reprende a sus discípulos diciendo: “Ahora voy al que me ha enviado, y ninguno de vosotros me pregunta: “¿Adónde vas?””. (Juan 16:5). O bien Jesús tenía una capacidad de atención muy corta o hay algo extraño en las fuentes de estos capítulos, lo que crea una extraña desconexión. Jesús, interrumpido, pp. 9 [1]
Así que ahí lo tienes. O Jesús o Juan estaban teniendo una “pifia cerebral”. Elija su opción.
¿Tenían Jesús o Juan un lapso de atención dolorosamente corto?
Si se mira la Biblia de forma mecánica, esta contradicción parece absurda a primera vista. Entonces, ¿cómo debemos entender esta supuesta discrepancia?
Me parece que el escritor de Juan está tratando con la reacción inmediata de los discípulos a las palabras de Jesús. La idea de su partida les llena de dolor, pero si hubieran preguntado a dónde iba y hubieran comprendido que era al Padre, habrían reconocido que era por el bien de Jesús y el suyo propio. Fíjate en el siguiente versículo: “Antes, porque os he dicho estas cosas, la tristeza ha llenado vuestro corazón. Pero yo os digo la verdad: Os conviene que yo me vaya; porque si no me fuera, el Consolador no vendría a vosotros; mas si me fuere, os lo enviaré.” (Jn 16,6-7 LBLA)
Si recordamos las veces anteriores en las que Jesús fue interrogado y que señala Ehrman, Pedro tenía un poco de complejo de guardaespaldas y no quería escuchar que Jesús se fuera solo. Así que cuando hace la pregunta en Juan 13:36 sobre a dónde va Jesús, no lo comprende.
Y en Juan 14:1-5, Jesús habla de ir a su Padre para prepararles lugar. Tomás hace una pregunta, pero es porque no capta lo que Jesús expone. No busca aclarar lo que quiere decir Jesús con estas cosas. Y sabemos que Tomás es un poco lento para entender, como descubrimos más adelante en el Evangelio de Juan. Tomás y Pedro pensaban con naturalidad.
El silencio de los discípulos se volvió ensordecedor
Vemos que en Juan 14, Jesús es interrumpido con otra pregunta, pero no se le hace otra pregunta en Juan 15. Hasta ahora, Jesús ha mencionado su partida, pero luego, en Juan 15:22-16:4, habla de la persecución que les espera. Ya sabes, algunas cosas pesadas. Ahora sus corazones están apenados. La tristeza los lleva a callar después de haber sido tan inquisitivos antes.
Es en 16:5 cuando Jesús dice: “chicos… todavía no lo entienden. Se quedaron callados con todas esas palabras duras de persecución y de que me iba. Pero no los voy a dejar solos. Estoy enviando al Espíritu en mi lugar. Ahora es el momento de volver a preguntar, pero esta vez seamos un poco más agudos y dejemos de lado el pesimismo sombrío”.
Después de esto, vuelven a interrumpir a Jesús dos veces más en Juan 16, demostrando que siguen sin entender de qué está hablando. Lee Juan 16:17-19:
Entonces algunos de sus discípulos se decían unos a otros: ¿Qué es esto que nos dice: «Un poco más, y no me veréis, y de nuevo un poco, y me veréis» y «Porque yo voy al Padre»? Por eso decían: ¿Qué es esto que dice: «Un poco»? No sabemos de qué habla. Jesús sabía que querían preguntarle, y les dijo: ¿Estáis discutiendo entre vosotros sobre esto, porque dije: «Un poco más, y no me veréis, y de nuevo un poco, y me veréis»? (LBLA)
Los discípulos por fin lo entienden, pero ¿lo entiende Ehrman?
Jesús responde entonces a sus preguntas, y termina diciendo “He venido del Padre y he venido al mundo, y ahora dejo el mundo y voy al Padre”.
La bombilla parece finalmente encenderse. Dejan de mirar las cosas terrenales y empiezan a ver las realidades espirituales de las que habla Jesús. En Juan 16:28-30 vemos: “Sus discípulos le dijeron: He aquí que ahora hablas claramente y no usas lenguaje figurado. Ahora entendemos que tú sabes todas las cosas, y no necesitas que nadie te pregunte; por esto creemos que tú viniste de Dios. Jesús les respondió: ¿Ahora creéis?” (LBLA).
Se acabaron las metáforas en sus mentes. Jesús habla ahora con claridad. Se quedaron callados después de algunas palabras duras de Jesús, pero ahora caen en cuenta después de que Jesús les incita a indagar más. Esta interpretación no viene sólo de mí, sino que también es apoyada por comentaristas y exegetas como CK Barrett, RCH Lenski, Craig Blomberg, John Gill, Christian Kuinoel y Hermann Olshausen.
Sólo si no dejamos espacio para el matiz conversacional tendríamos que concluir que Jesús tuvo un lapsus mental o que algo extraño está pasando con el escritor de Juan. Parece que la lectura de Bart es bastante rígida, y me atrevo a decir que fundamentalista. Hay más de sus ejemplos de supuestas discrepancias en Jesús, interrumpido, que son mucho más dignos de investigación y debate. Pero este no es un momento de oro para Ehrman aquí. Y por desgracia, hay más malos como éste. No hay nada tan extraño aquí.
Erik Manning es un director del capítulo de Reasonable Faith (Fe Razonable) situado en Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Es un antiguo escritor independiente de béisbol y copropietario de un negocio de decoración antigua y artesanal con su esposa, Dawn. Le apasiona la intersección entre la apologética y el evangelismo.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Blog-ESP-cover.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2022-06-17 08:00:532024-11-01 13:02:15Derribando una de las contradicciones bíblicas favoritas de Bart Ehrman
When it comes to miracles, Christians are often accused of special pleading. We’re quick to accept Christian miracle claims, but we suddenly turn into Richard Dawkins when it comes to miracle claims made by other religions. Why should skeptics start investigating the resurrection of Jesus when we don’t give other miracles the time of day? The truth is that there are dozens of different religions and thousands of miraculous claims out there. So how can the Christian hope to use miracles as an argument for their faith?
But the fact that there are miracle claims in other religions doesn’t require us to dismiss all miracle claims out of hand. Nor is it necessary for us to be haplessly credulous about all historical miracle claims. There’s a middle way. Before examining miracle claims in detail, we can and should run them through a religiously-neutral evidential filter. Failure to pass through such a filter wouldn’t necessarily prove that the miracle didn’t occur, but it does give us reasons to doubt it. From there we can move on to more promising candidates and not waste our time.
So what filter do I have in mind? Dr. Tim McGrew proposed a 6-point DOUBTS filter in his debate with Zachary Moore. DOUBTS is a backronym because Dr. McGrew is a philosophy professor, and well, teachers can’t resist making backronyms. McGrew has co-written the chapter on The Argument from Miracles in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, as well as the entry for Miracles in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so he’s a bit of a subject matter expert here. Let’s take a look at his filter.
D – DISTANT EVENTS
For starters, the D in DOUBTS stands for distant events. When the first report of a miracle is made only at a significant distance from the alleged event, we have reasons to doubt. So for example, a 2nd-century Greek writer named Philostratus reports that Apollonius of Tyana worked all kinds of wonders. The problem is that many of these wonders often allegedly happened in India, while Philostratus was writing in Greece some 3500 miles away. This is like that socially awkward guy who claims he’s dating a really hot girl who no one has seen from Canada. We have reason to be skeptical.
O – OPINIONS ALREADY ESTABLISHED
The O in DOUBTS stands for opinions already established. When miracles confirm or affirm established opinions and prejudices, we have some reasons to be skeptical. So for example, we have reason to doubt Brigham Young’s claim that Joseph Smith walked house-to-house healing a large group of his followers from malaria while living in Illinois. Young was Smith’s predecessor and had already recognized him as God’s special prophet. There are few details in the reports, and the people who preserved them weren’t initially suspicious. They might have credulously latched onto any flimsy claim made about Smith.
U – UNCERTAIN EVENTS
Next up is U – uncertain events. Granting that the event really happened, if it can be explained without implausibility that it was a natural event, we have reasons to be skeptical. If certain saints were said to levitate but clever illusionists can replicate this trick, chances are it wasn’t a miracle. Or for another example, the Talmud tells us about Honi the Circle Drawer. When rain did not come well into the winter, Honi drew a circle in the dust and sat inside it. He then told God that he would not move until it rained. And what do you know–it began to rain. Yet I think we’re all pretty experienced with rain and how it comes and passes. While this could be a miraculous answer to prayer, this also could’ve just been a coincidence and a fully natural occurrence. It’s an uncertain event and nothing on the same level as, say, someone being raised from the dead.
B – BELATED REPORTS
Moving on to B – belated reports. When the first report of a said miracle comes long after the event, we have some serious reasons to be skeptical. Let’s go back to our buddy Apollonius of Tyana. Philostratus wrote his biography 100 years after Apollonius was dead. That’s obviously a long time and any alleged eyewitnesses would’ve long been dead. Or we have the resurrection stories about St. Nicolas. Reportedly there was a horrible famine, an evil butcher lured three children into his house, killed them and pickled them. This baddy was planning to try and pass them off as cured ham. Gross stuff. Saint Nicolas saw through this scheme and allegedly resurrected the kids by making the sign of the cross. The problem is this story was first circulated in Medieval times, hundreds of years after St. Nick was dead.
T – TRIVIAL MIRACLES
Let’s now move on to the T in the DOUBTS filter – Trival miracles. These would be reports of miracles that are unconnected to any significant purpose. They make no real difference to our lives. The basic idea is captured by the Roman poet Horace when he wrote: “Let a god not intervene unless it’s a knot worthy of a god’s untying.” You’ll often hear skeptics ask crazy things like: “well, if I told you that I have a friend who flew around the room by flapping his arms, died, rose again and turned my sofa into a donkey all in one evening, would you believe me?” Well, why would God be behind something like that? What deep questions about our destiny does this answer, or what striking doctrines would this confirm? Even if such a story happened, what claim does this supposed miracle make on my life? At the most, this flying man might cause me to conclude that the world is a stranger place than I initially imagined. Such an event serves no significant purpose.
S – SELF-SERVING MIRACLES
Finally, we’ve reached the S in the DOUBTS filter. The S stands for self-serving miracle claims. When a supposed miracle serves obvious human motivations like sex, political power, greed, a lust for fame then there’s a huge reason to doubt such a miracle claim. Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba allegedly miraculously manifested clocks and watches but was accused of sexual abuse, money laundering, among other things. The Mormon founder Joseph Smith had ambitions to be the President of the United States and married over 40 different women. There are reasons to think there’s something fishy going on with his so-called revelations.
A PERSONAL CRITERION I’D ADD – V – VAGUENESS.
Granted, this takes away the coolness of the backronym but I’d add vague reports to the criteria. So for example, after apostatizing from the Mormon church and denying that Joseph Smith was a prophet, Fanny Stenhouse recorded an experience in which she said she saw Smith miraculously heal an old woman named Sister Armstrong who had been bedridden for years. In her account, Stenhouse says that this was not a fake healing. However, she attributes it to “animal magnetism” and not directly associated with God. But that’s all we have is something rather brief in her biography, there’s not a lot of details in the report. We’d have to know a lot more about what was wrong with the old woman, why she was bedridden, and what Smith did to believe it was a genuine miracle. It’s a vague report.
I think this is where we need to be careful as Christians, too. If we just rely on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 to carry the load for our resurrection apologetic, we give vague evidence that isn’t detailed enough to warrant justified belief. Brief and confusing episodes are arguably compatible with 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as I’ve argued here. We need the detailed, multisensory, time-extended experiences that we read about in the Gospels to make a strong case.
IS THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS WORTHY OF OUR INVESTIGATION?
Remember that any miracle claim that fails on one or more of these criteria might still be true, but these give us a reasonable basis to not investigate them. I’d argue that the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t run afoul of any of the criteria. Without the aid of a miracle, crucified and buried dead men tend to stay dead. It’s not an uncertain event. The resurrection was proclaimed in the streets of Jerusalem, within weeks after the crucifixion. The disciples stayed in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified (Galatians 2:1,9) even when the church came under heavy persecution. (Acts 7, 12)
For the disciples to preach this so soon after Jesus’ execution that their religious leaders set up was to invite the same type of persecution. They could have waited until things calmed down. But they did not. Peter shifted from denying Jesus to boldly proclaiming his resurrection just 50 days after Jesus was murdered. (Acts 2:22-24). The enemies of Christianity had the means, motive, and opportunity to discredit the story. Jesus claimed that he was the Giver of eternal life, so there’s nothing trivial about this claim.
For more details, see this video:
THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY?
The skeptic might then ask: aren’t these criteria then a bit self-serving for Christians? As a believer, Dr. McGrew obviously believes the resurrection passes this filter. So isn’t this an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy? For those of you who don’t know, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is where one cherry-picks a data cluster to suit your argument, or finds a pattern to fit a presumption. I don’t believe that’s the case here.
For starters, this criteria cuts against miracle claims that I’d accept. Since I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, I accept that Balaam’s donkey spoke. But I am not asking a skeptic to start their historical investigation there and I think they’re not unreasonable if they’re skeptical that such an event happened. Remember that these criteria are religiously neutral. They’re obviously sensible and keep one from wasting their time chasing after unpromising claims. Each criteria reduces the probability that a genuine miracle occurred, so a skeptic should like them. If one wants to add to this criteria, I’m all ears. I’d personally add that in the case of modern miracles where the person is still alive, medical data would be something I’d like to see.
These criteria should be embraced by the skeptic because it gives them the opportunity to say that they’re not dogmatically rejecting all miracle claims out of hand. I hope this helps show that Christians aren’t necessarily guilty of special pleading. Maybe we reject miracle claims in other religions because they’re often poorly attested.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek(mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truthmp3 by Frank Turek
Erik is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Blog-1-cover_-1.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2022-04-11 07:00:522024-11-01 14:21:06D.O.U.B.T.S.: An Evidential Filter For Miracle Claims
If you want people to trust their leaders, you usually try to paint them in the best possible light. You don’t go out of your way to undermine their authority. But that’s not what we see in the Gospels. Those who will eventually lead the church often appear impulsive, incompetent, boastful, and stupid. If the Gospels are supposed to be public relations for the apostles, their propaganda team was a dismal failure.
This type of information is what NT scholars call the criteria of shame. In his book, Marginal Jew, Meier writes:
The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone to the trouble of creating material that would only embarrass its creator or weaken his position in arguments with opponents.
Marginal Jew
Those Unbelieving Disciples
Let’s look at the Gospel of Mark, since most believe it to be the oldest. Mark tells us that the disciples were often unbelievers. When they encountered a storm while crossing a lake, the disciples panicked. (Mark 4:35-41) They blatantly accused Jesus of not caring about them, and Jesus rebuked them for not having faith. They were also terrified when they saw Jesus walking on water just two chapters later. (Mark 6:50)
When a man brought his demon-possessed son to his followers, the disciples proved too incompetent to help the boy. Jesus rebuked them for their lack of faith. (Mark 9:17-19) Mark also tells us that Jesus’ own family thought he was crazy. (Mark 3:21) Later we read in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians that James and Jesus’ other brothers became leaders in the church. (Acts 15, 1 Cor 9:5, Galatians 1-2) So far, the future leaders of Jesus’ church seem like a sorry bunch.
The Disciples Were Slow
Mark also tells us that the disciples were extremely slow learners. They asked questions about Jesus’ parables that he expected them, of all people, to understand. They often missed the main points of the parables (Mark 4:13; 7:18).
Jesus had previously fed a crowd of 5,000 and later 4,000 with a few loaves and fish. Shortly afterward, Jesus said that they should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. What did the disciples do in response? They quarreled among themselves because they had forgotten to put bread in the boat for the crossing. Jesus had to remind them that food was not their goal or problem. That should have been obvious by then. (Mark 8:14-21)
The Disciples Were Rude
The disciples were notoriously rude. As I mentioned earlier, they accused Jesus of not caring about them when He was sleeping through the storm. Peter had the brilliant idea to rebuke Jesus when He said He was going to be sacrificed. Jesus called Peter Satan in response, so yeah, that didn’t go down well. (Mark 8:31-33)
When people brought little children to be blessed by Jesus, as if they were ogres, his disciples tried to drive them away. (Mark 10:13-14) When the woman anointed Jesus’ feet with expensive perfume, Mark tells us that “they rebuked her sharply.” It was not a gentle move. Jesus told them emphatically to leave her alone. She was worth more to Jesus than all of them put together. (Mark 14:4-9)
The disciples were fighting over who was the greatest, and John and James had the courage to ask Jesus if they could sit at his right and left when he came into his kingdom. (Mark 9:33-34, 10:35-37) It is clear that they did not understand the kind of servant leadership that Jesus was modeling.
When things get tough, disciples run
In Jesus’ darkest hour, they boast that they were willing to die rather than abandon him. (Mark 14:31) While Jesus was praying, they all fell asleep. (Mark 14:37-42) And when he was arrested, they all ran away. (Mark 14:50) Peter eventually denied him three times under pressure from a servant girl (Mark 14:66-72), and they all absented themselves on the day of the resurrection. (Mark 16:1-9) Even though Jesus repeatedly told them that he would rise again three days later. (Mark 8:31-32, 9:30-32, 10:32-34, 14:28) Even atheist scholars like Gerd Ludemann use the criterion of shame when arguing for the historicity of Peter’s denial. (The Resurrection of Christ, p. 162)
Finally, who came to the tomb? Women (Mark 16:1). They were the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb. This is in itself an embarrassing detail, since the testimony of a woman in the context of the first century had very little weight.
“But let not the testimony of women be admitted, because of the frivolity and boldness of their sex” … (Josephus, Antiquities, 4.8.15).
“Any proof that a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer)” … (Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1.8c).
Luke tells us that the disciples thought the women’s testimony was “nonsense.” They did not believe them. (Luke 24:11) 100 years later, Celsus would mock Christians for believing the tales of a hysterical woman. (Against Celsus 2.54)
Again, if this is supposed to be Christian propaganda to make their leaders look good, or to make the resurrection story more convincing, the Gospel writers caused problems for themselves. In the words of scholar N. T. Wright:
“As historians, we are forced to comment that if these accounts had been invented five years later, let alone thirty, forty, fifty years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role. Putting Mary in there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists who want to explain to a skeptical public that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But for us as historians, this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, ever have made this up.”
The Resurrection of the Son of God
Embarrassing Details in the Facts
And it’s not like things are all right in the Book of Acts, either. You know, that book about the apostles taking over leadership after Jesus. You’d think Luke would make it seem like they finally got on track. Instead, we see Paul and Barnabas have a huge fight over bringing Mark (the future Gospel writer!) along because Mark got homesick and left them in the middle of the earlier ministry. (Acts 15:36-40) Mark is mentioned later in Paul’s letters, so apparently, things were patched up later. (Philemon 24)
There were also racist disputes in the nascent church in Jerusalem because the Hellenized Jewish widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. (Acts 6:1)
And although Jesus told them to take the Gospel to all the world, it took a special vision for Peter to finally understand that it was okay to preach to those unclean Gentiles, apparently years later. (Acts 10)
What True Christian Propaganda Looks Like
Luke and Mark hardly make the apostles saints. Now compare this to other Christian propaganda. Eusebius wrote a biography of the Emperor Constantine that was very careful, to say the least. He cleverly omits that Constantine had his own son Crispus and his other wife Fausta killed. Instead, Eusebius makes Constantine out to be a super saint. This is what real propaganda looks like.
It is hard to imagine early Christians inventing embarrassments for themselves when they already had enough trouble from persecution. However, it is difficult to read Mark’s Gospel without getting a negative impression of the apostles. Again, this is the earliest of the Gospels according to most scholars. Eyewitnesses would still have been present, including some of the apostles. These negative statements are strong indications that these things were actually said. NT scholar CEB Cranfield concludes:
“The fact that the material is disconcerting and offensive… will be preserved and will reach Marcos speaks volumes about the general reliability of the sources used by him.”
These self-defeating materials are one more reason why we can trust the Gospels. This kind of evidence does not by itself prove that the Gospels are reliable, but it does lend some support to this view. It is one part of a much larger cumulative case.
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Blog-ESP-cover-3.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2022-04-08 07:00:472024-11-01 14:22:28Los evangelios son vergonzosos para los apóstoles
While reading the gospels, you’ll notice similarities between the characters portrayed across the different stories. Parallels between the gospels concerning character depictions are unlikely to be the result of mere chance. And these correspondences seem so casual and subtle that it’s unlikely they were designed that way. Philosopher Tim McGrew calls these ‘artless similarities.’
In an earlier video, we saw this kind of unity of character with Jesus between John and the Synoptics. But let me give another example with two somewhat lesser-known characters in the gospels — Mary and Martha. We find their stories in both Luke and John. For this evidence, I’m drawing from Peter J. Williams’ excellent book Can We Trust the Gospels?
Mary And Martha in Luke
As we read Luke 10 and John 11, we see that the two stories are very different. The majority of John 11 is about Jesus raising Mary and Martha’s brother Lazarus from the dead. With no obvious link to John, Luke gives the following story:
“As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!” “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”
If John and Luke knew each other’s gospels, clearly they could’ve simply copied the names, but they obviously didn’t copy their completely different stories. Both gospels give us a glimpse of two characters who are in stark contrast: Martha is a hard worker and stressed out about practical matters. Mary sits and listens to Jesus’s teaching while ignoring her sister’s worries over entertaining their guests. Both sisters have different personality types: one is proactive and practical, while the other is introspective and thoughtful.
Mary And Martha in John
The same two women are seen in John’s gospel after their brother has died. Jesus visits them in Bethany, their hometown. Martha went straight to Jesus as soon as she heard he got there, while Mary remained seated at home (John 11:20). Right off the bat, we see a coincidence in the kinds of responses. Both Luke and John describe Mary as sitting while Martha is in action. In both accounts, Martha is the welcoming committee. She isn’t afraid to get a little fussy with Jesus for not coming sooner, just as she got upset when she wanted Jesus to rebuke her sister for not helping with the meal preparation in Luke. (John 11:21)
The fidgety Martha then tells her sister that Jesus is calling her after meeting Jesus. (John 11:28) Mary gets up and rushes to Jesus. Those with her think she’s going to the tomb to weep. (John 11:31) Unlike Martha, Mary “fell at his feet.” (John 11:32) Remember that she was at Jesus’ feet in Luke. Jesus sees her weeping (John 11:33), we don’t have a record of where Martha weeps.
Mary also seems to be perplexed with Jesus for not coming earlier, but Jesus doesn’t even talk to her. Jesus gets deeply emotional when he sees Mary crying with the others and asks where Lazarus is buried. Jesus seems to be especially moved by Mary’s tears. At the tomb, Jesus himself weeps and commands the stone to be moved. At this point, the ever-practical Martha blurts out, “Lord, by this time there will be a bad odor, for he has been dead there four days.” (John 11:39) She obviously fails to realize that Jesus is about to raise Lazarus from the dead.
Then in chapter 12, Martha is once again seen as serving. (Jn 12:2) Mary pours costly perfume on Jesus’ feet. (Jn 12:3) She’s once again at Jesus’ feet. As Jesus had to defend Mary to Martha for her right priorities, he also had to defend her to Judas and the rest of the disciples. Judas (and perhaps the other disciples) said the ointment should’ve been sold and given to the poor instead of being wasted on Jesus’ feet.
The Same Mary and Martha
Although these two stories are completely different, they both describe the two women in complementary ways. The physical matter of Mary “sitting” and placing herself at Jesus’ feet and Martha’s practical concern illustrates this. Likewise, Martha appears to be more active in both stories. It seems clear from this that both Luke and John are talking about actual people, showing that the Gospel accounts are shaped by eyewitness testimony.
Additionally, there are some practical insights here for the believer. In both accounts, Jesus shows love for his friends. He’s direct when they’re out of line, but commends them when they do what’s right. Jesus also jumps to his friends’ defense when they’re being misunderstood. He weeps with them when they weep and is willing to put himself in harm’s way to help them. As you may recall, the high priest plotted to kill Jesus after Jesus raised their brother from the dead. (John 11:53)
Lydia McGrew sums these points up well in her book The Eye of the Beholder:
“Jesus’ interactions are always with specific people, never abstractions…His friendships in all four Gospels show us something more than a gifted, focused communicator; they show us a man who felt human affection for specific people, as we do ourselves.” p. 398
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace(Book)
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek(MP3) and(DVD)
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek(mp4 Download)
The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truthmp3 by Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and(DVD)
https://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Blog-1-cover-1.jpg12562400Guesthttps://crossexamined.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/ce_logo.pngGuest2022-01-03 08:00:192024-11-01 15:04:18Artless Similarities: More Evidence for Gospel Reliability
