The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and its Evidential Value, Part 1

An argument for Christianity that seldom receives adequate attention is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus (also known as Paul) on the road to Damascus. There exist three accounts of Paul’s conversion in the book of Acts — in chapters 9, 22, and 26. The argument from Paul’s conversion has been laid out in most detail by Sir George Lyttelton (1709-1773), in his book Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul. The book is now in the public domain, and a free PDF copy can be obtained at this link. So strong and convincing is the argument from Paul’s conversion that Lyttelton wrote at the beginning of his book, addressing his friend Gilbert West [1],

In a late conversation we had together upon the subject of the Christian religion, I told you, that besides all the proofs of it which may be drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testament, from the necessary connection it has with the whole system of the Jewish religion, from the miracles of Christ, and from the evidence given of his resurrection by all the other Apostles; I thought the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a Divine Revelation.

In this essay, I shall lay out in detail why Paul’s Damascus road conversion constitutes powerful evidence of the truth of Christianity.

When evaluating any set of testimonial claims, there exist three broad explanatory categories that might account for why the claim was made — that is, the claimant(s) was / were either lying, sincerely mistaken, or truthful in their testimony. These options are mutually exhaustive. In order, to evaluate those explanations, however, we must first establish what the original claimant(s) alleged. Thus, the argument of this essay will take the following structure:

Proposition 1: The accounts in Acts substantially represent Paul’s own conversion testimony.

Proposition 2: Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken.

Proposition 3: Paul was not plausibly intentionally deceptive.

Conclusion: Therefore, the best explanation of the evidence is that Paul did indeed encounter Christ on the Damascus road.

I shall now proceed to lay out the evidence for each of these propositions.

Proposition 1: The Accounts in Acts substantially represent Paul’s own conversion testimony.

For economy of space, the present article will take it for granted that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. I and others have laid out this case in detail elsewhere. For those not familiar with the substantive evidence for this contention, I would suggest the following resources [see endnote 2].[2]

Given that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul — someone who spent a great deal of time with him — he would have been in a strong position to know what Paul’s testimony was. Paul also appears to have repeated his testimony on multiple occasions — it is given three times in the book of Acts, twice being attributed to Paul’s own words — before a Jewish crowd in Jerusalem, to whom he spoke from the steps of the barracks (Acts 22), and later to the governor Festus and King Agrippa (Acts 26). When we consider the evidence for Luke’s meticulousness as an historian and attention to detail (laid out in the aforementioned resources), together with the fact that he was laying his own neck on the line for the gospel (as evidenced by the fact that he was present with Paul during many of Paul’s own sufferings for the sake of the gospel — including his imprisonment in Caesarea Maritima (for at least two years according to Acts 24:27) and later in Rome, as well as Paul’s hearing before the Sanhedrin (Acts 23) and formal trials before governors Felix and Festus in Caesarea. Taken together, this provides a substantial reason to think that Luke very probably provided an accurate representation of Paul’s own testimony.

Paul also implies in his letters that his audiences were familiar with his background and conversion testimony — and, thus, that his testimony was widely known among the churches. Jason Engwer explains the implications of this:

[T]he account [Paul] gave of what he experienced with the risen Christ surely was widely disseminated and often reinforced by the time he died. It would be difficult to get even a large percentage of Christians to accept a change in Paul’s account. It would be even harder to do it with every or almost every Christian. And the larger the change involved, the more difficult it would be to successfully carry out the change.

For example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9:1, “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” These are rhetorical questions. He does not take time to explain the circumstances under which he encountered Jesus — it is taken for granted that the Corinthians know the circumstances of which he writes. Likewise, in 1 Corinthians 15:8-9, he writes, “Last of all, as to one untimely born, he [Christ] appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.” It again seems implicit that his readers know something of the background. He writes to the Philippians, “If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless,” (Phil 3:4-6). Again, it seems implicit that Paul’s audience in Philippi were acquainted, at least to some extent, with the background to which he alludes — particularly in his relation to his having been a former persecutor and Pharisee.

The most striking example is in Galatians 1:11-17, in which Paul writes,

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Take note of Paul’s words in verse 13 — “For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it.” Paul’s readers had already heard about Paul’s background as a church persecutor and religious Jew. It is thus quite likely that they knew more about Paul’s conversion that transformed him into Christianity’s most ardent advocate. Observe too Paul’s words in verse 17 — “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” Paul does not take the time to explain to his readers why Damascus was the place to which he returned from Arabia. It is taken for granted that they already know the connection to Damascus — this is where he went immediately upon his conversion (Acts 9:8). William Paley remarks [3],

In this quotation from the epistle, I desire it to be remarked how incidentally it appears, that the affair passed at Damascus. In what may be called the direct part of the account, no mention is made of the place of his conversion at all: a casual expression at the end, and an expression brought in for a different purpose, alone fixes it to have been at Damascus; “I returned again to Damascus.” Nothing can be more like simplicity and undesignedness than this is. It also draws the agreement between the two quotations somewhat closer, to observe, that they both state St. Paul to have preached the gospel immediately upon his call: “And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.’ Acts, chap. 9:20. ‘When it pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.” Gal. chap. 1:15.

This casual connection between Galatians and Acts is all the more striking when we consider that these two sources appear to be independent of one another — that is, the author of Acts did not use Galatians as a source, nor vice versa. As Paley observes [4],

Beside the difference observable in the terms and general complexion of these two accounts, “the journey into Arabia,” mentioned in the epistle, and omitted in the history, affords full proof that there existed no correspondence between these writers. If the narrative in the Acts had been made up from the Epistle, it is impossible that this journey should have been passed over in silence; if the Epistle had been composed out of what the author had read of St. Paul’s history in the Acts, it is unaccountable that it should have been inserted.

Indeed, the omission in Acts concerning the journey into Arabia for three years is quite surprising if the author of Acts was using Paul’s letter as a source. The accounts, though, are not mutually exclusive. The phrase “many days”, used by Luke in Acts 9:23 is most probably an idiomatic expression denoting an indefinite period of time. The equivalent phrase in Hebrew is used in 1 Kings 2:38, but the next verse indicates that those “many days” encompassed a three year period. It is also not particularly implausible that Luke simply was not aware of the journey into Arabia, or for some other reason chose not to write about it. Nonetheless, the apparent discrepancy between Acts and Galatians provides internal evidence of independence between the two sources. Paley offers another piece of evidence indicating independence [5]:

The journey to Jerusalem related in the second chapter of the Epistle (“then, fourteen years after, I went up again to Jerusalem”) supplies another example of the same kind. Either this was the journey described in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, when Paul and Barnabas were sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, to consult the apostles and elders upon the question of the Gentile converts; or it was some journey of which the history does not take notice. If the first opinion be followed, the discrepancy in the two accounts is so considerable, that it is not without difficulty they can be adapted to the same transaction: so that, upon this supposition, there is no place for suspecting that the writers were guided or assisted by each other. If the latter opinion be preferred, we have then a journey to Jerusalem, and a conference with the principal members of the church there, circumstantially related in the Epistle, and entirely omitted in the Acts; and we are at liberty to repeat the observation, which we before made, that the omission of so material a fact in the history is inexplicable, if the historian had read the Epistle; and that the insertion of it in the Epistle, if the writer derived his information from the history, is not less so.

The internal evidence of independence between Acts and Galatians, together with the convergence of details relating to Paul’s conversion (particularly the reference to returning to Damascus) suggest that the accounts in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion are in alignment with Paul’s own testimony.

An additional reason for thinking that Acts and Galatians are independent is that Acts 9:27 indicates that, in Jerusalem, “Barnabas took him [Paul] and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus.” Compare this to Galatians 1:18-19: “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother,” (emphasis added). On the surface, this appears to be a discrepancy. Of course, “the apostles” could be taken to refer to Peter and James (most scholars, including myself, are of the opinion that Galatians 1:19 identifies James the Lord’s brother as an apostle). We could also take it that Paul uses ‘saw’ to mean ‘conversed with’ or ‘met with,’ not that he did not even see any of the other apostles in a meeting, etc. We sometimes use ‘saw’ in this sense ourselves. One could imagine that perhaps Barnabas and Peter decided that they did not want to set Paul down in front of them like a tribunal and question him, so during that time he stayed, let us suppose, in someone’s home, met with James and Peter, and otherwise for those two weeks he was out rabble rousing, as it were, talking and debating with Jews in Jerusalem (Acts 9:28-29), and eventually was rushed away due to a plot to kill him. In any case, the surface tension between these texts adds additional support for the thesis of independence.

It is also of note that, in Galatians 1:18-19, Paul indicates that his visit to Jerusalem was quite brief. One wonders why Paul’s visit to Jerusalem was cut short such that he only remained there fifteen days and reportedly saw none of the other apostles besides Cephas (Simon Peter) and James the Lord’s brother. Acts 9:29 indicates that there was an assassination plot against Paul by the Hellenists such that he needed to leave Jerusalem in haste. This explains the account in Galatians in an undesigned way, such that it serves to corroborate the historicity of both accounts. This further supports that the testimony in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion and the events shortly thereafter reflect Paul’s own testimony. We also read in Acts 22:17 Paul’s statement that “When I had returned to Jerusalem and was praying in the temple, I fell into a trance and saw him saying to me, ‘Make haste and get out of Jerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me.’” Paley remarks, “Here we have the general terms of one text so explained by a distant text in the same book, as to bring an indeterminate expression into a close conformity with a specification delivered in another book: a species of consistency not, I think, usually found in fabulous relations.” [6]

A further point, relating to our text in Galatians 1:18-19, is that Paul some verses later indicates that “afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,” (Gal 1:21). The account in Acts 9 indicates that, when the brothers learned of the plot against Paul’s life, “they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus,” (v. 30). Paley observes that, “if he took his journey by land, it would carry him through Syria into Cilicia; and he would come, after his visit at Jerusalem, ‘into the regions of Syria and Cilicia,’ in the very order in which he mentions them in the epistle.” Caesarea, of course, was a major port city, and so it is plausible that he made at least part of the journey by sea, before perhaps continuing on land. It is also of note that Paul indicates immediately following this statement in Galatians that “I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, ‘He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy,” (Galatians 1:22-23). Paley observes, “Upon which passage I observe, first, that what is here said of the churches of Judea, is spoken in connection with his journey into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Secondly, that the passage itself has little significancy, and that the connection is inexplicable, unless St. Paul went through Judea (though probably by a hasty journey) at the time that he came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Suppose him to have passed by land from Cæsarea to Tarsus, all this, as hath been observed, would be precisely true.” [7]

Finally, it may be noted that Paul’s own account of the plot against his life in Damascus, in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33, dovetails with the account in Acts 9:23-25. Paul writes, “At Damascus, the governor under King Aretas was guarding the city of Damascus in order to seize me, 33 but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall and escaped his hands.” Compare this with the account in Acts 9:23-25: “When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.” Notice that the account in Acts emphasizes the involvement of the Jews, whereas Paul, in 2 Corinthians, emphasizes the involvement of Aretas IV, the king of the Nabateans (who reigned from 9 B.C. to 40 C.E.). These are not mutually exclusive (presumably, there was a conspiracy involving both parties). Nonetheless, the discrepancy between Acts and 2 Corinthians points to independence, which renders the points of convergence of significant evidential value. Why might Aretas IV be involved in the conspiracy against Paul in Damascus? Aretas IV had significant political influence and authority in the region. Around the time of Paul’s conversion, Aretas IV was ruling Damascus, likely through a governor or ethnarch who was in charge of the Jewish community there. This authority over Damascus was granted to Aretas by the emperor Gaius Caligula. The event in Acts probably occurred around 37 C.E., based on evidence of Nabatean rule in Damascus commencing that year.

There are also additional reasons to believe that Acts and 2 Corinthians are independent of one another. For example, Titus is mentioned throughout 2 Corinthians (2:13; 7:6, 13, 14; 8:6, 16, 23; 12:18), but is nowhere mentioned in Acts. Moreover, the list of Paul’s sufferings in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29 cannot be readily correlated with Acts (though it is by no means mutually exclusive). For example, 2 Corinthians 11:25 indicates that Paul endured three shipwrecks prior to the beginning of Acts 20 (when he wrote 2 Corinthians from Macedonia). Acts does not record any of those shipwrecks, but instead narrates an entirely different one in chapter 27. Furthermore, a major theme in the Corinthian letters, as well as Romans, is the collection being prepared for the relief of the saints in Jerusalem. Though Acts agrees with the implied order of travel, there is no explicit mention in Acts of fundraising as a purpose of Paul’s travels (though there is a cryptic allusion to it in Paul’s speech before Felix, in Acts 24:17: “Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings”). Taken cumulatively, it seems near certain that Luke did not use 2 Corinthians as a source for the composition of Acts. As Paley notes, “Now if we be satisfied in general concerning these two ancient writings, that the one was not known to the writer of the other, or not consulted by him; then the accordances which may be pointed out between them will admit of no solution so probable, as the attributing of them to truth and reality, as to their common foundation.” [8]

As can be seen from the evidence provided above, several undesigned coincidences relate specifically to the account of Paul’s conversion in Acts 9. This further supports that the narrative concerning Paul’s Damascus road experience accurately represent Paul’s own testimony. When considered in conjunction with the other lines of evidence already considered (that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul and was thus in a position to know Paul’s testimony; Paul repeated his testimony multiple times and implies in his letters that his testimony was already widely known; Luke’s demonstrated meticulousness as an historian; and the fact that Luke was putting his own neck on the line), the evidence may be considered very convincing indeed.

Proposition 2: Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken.

Having established that the accounts in Acts concerning Paul’s conversion substantially represent what Paul himself testified to, we are now in a position to evaluate whether the specific set of claims recorded in Acts are the sort about which one might plausibly be sincerely mistaken.

Multisensory Experiences: Paul’s experience is alleged to have been multisensory — involving both a visual and auditory component (Acts 9:3-6, 22:6-10, 26:13-18; 1 Cor 9:1, 15:8). Moreover, it was intersubjective — affecting not only Paul, but also his travelling companions who were purportedly thrown to the ground, having heard the voice though seeing no one (Acts 9:7, 22:9; 26:14). Acts 22:9 indicates that Paul’s travelling companions nonetheless saw the light. Moreover, Paul was blinded by the experience for three days (Acts 9:8-9; 22:11) and later healed by Ananias who received a vision concerning Paul, and Paul a vision concerning Ananias (Acts 9:10-19; 22:12-16).

Miraculous Signs: Furthermore, Paul claims to have performed miracles. In 2 Corinthians 12:12, he writes, “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, with signs and wonders and mighty works.” Note that this appeal is made to an audience who had in their midst individuals who doubted Paul’s apostolic credentials. It was risky to appeal to such miracles if there were no such convincing miracles to speak of that could be brought to the minds of his critics. There is a similar passage, indicating that Paul performed miracles, in Romans 15:18-19: “For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ,” (emphasis added). Though Paul does not indicate what those signs purportedly involved, we read in Acts about the sort of miracles that Paul performed. For example, describing a curse that Paul placed on the magician Elymas (who had opposed Paul and Barnabas, seeking to turn the Proconsul away from the faith), Luke writes in Acts 13:9-12,

9 But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him 10 and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.” Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand. 12 Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord.

Among Paul’s other miraculous signs, he healed a man who had been crippled since birth (Acts 14:8-10), healed many sick (Acts 19:11-12), raised Eutychus from the dead after his fall from the third story of a building (Acts 20:9-12), and healed the father of Publius, who lay sick with fever and dysentery, on Malta (Acts 28:7-9). As I and others have demonstrated at length elsewhere (see the resource list at the beginning of this article), Luke was an incredibly scrupulous historian who had a high regard for historical accuracy. He also valued eyewitness testimony (e.g. Luke 1:2). The most probable source for the alleged miracles in Acts (besides those that he might have witnessed himself) is Paul.

When we consider the content of Paul’s testimony concerning his conversion experience on the Damascus road, together with his purported miracles, it seems to be difficult to account for on the supposition that he was sincerely mistaken — in particular given that he was not already predisposed to expect an appearance from the raised Christ. Paul was a persecutor of the church and a zealous Pharisee. What could have prompted him to so drastically change his mind, and reverse course 180 degrees? Sir George Lyttelton notes that “[Paul’s] mind, far from being disposed to a credulous faith, or a too easy reception of any miracle worked in proof of the Christian religion, appears to have been barred against it by the most obstinate prejudices, as much as any man’s could possibly be; and from hence we may fairly conclude, that nothing less than the irresistible evidence of his own senses, clear from all possibility of doubt, could have overcome his unbelief.” [9]

Though some have attempted to explain Paul’s experience by appeal to temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), such a hypothesis is hardly credible. For one thing, TLE blindness is incredibly short — typically thirty seconds to ten minutes. Paul’s blindness, by contrast, lasted for three days and was healed on command by Ananias. It is also typical to quickly forget what happened during the seizure. Moreover, the fact that Paul’s companions also purportedly heard a voice and perceived a light and were thrown to the ground is surprising on the TLE hypothesis. The fact that something like scales fell from Paul’s eyes (Acts 9:18) also does not comport well with this explanation.

Internal Discrepancies? Before moving on, a word must be said about a couple of alleged discrepancies between the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts. It has been observed that, according to Acts 9:7, “The men who were travelling with him stood speechless, hearing [ἀκούοντες] the voice but seeing no one,” whereas Acts 22:9 indicates that the travelling companions “saw the light but did not hear [οὐκ ἤκουσαν] the voice of the one who was speaking to [Paul].” Though οὐκ ἤκουσαν can be rendered “did not hear,” another legitimate translation is “did not understand” (indeed, it is rendered this way by the ESV, NIV, NASB, and NET, though the KJV translates it “did not hear”). In Luke 6:27-28, Jesus says, “But I say to you who hear [ἀκούουσιν], Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.” Clearly, here, the meaning of Ἀλλὰ ὑμῖν λέγω τοῖς ἀκούουσιν is “But I say to you who understand…” Likewise, in Mark 4:33, we read, “With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear [ἀκούειν] it.” Clearly, in context, the verb ακουω means to understand. Acts 26:14 indicates that the voice spoke in the Hebrew language. If Paul’s companions were Greek speakers, this could plausibly account for why they were unable to understand the voice.

Another alleged discrepancy is that, according to Acts 9:7, Paul’s companions “stood speechless,” whereas Acts 26:14 indicates that they were thrown to the ground. Most probably the phrase “stood speechless” is simply an idiomatic expression that means they were stopped dead, without insinuating that they were standing up the whole time.

Having established that Paul was not plausibly sincerely mistaken, only two options remain — either he was intentionally deceptive, or he really did have an encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus. It is to the hypothesis of deception that I now turn. . .

Stay tuned for Part 2.

References:

[1] George Lyttelton, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul (The Institute Trust, 1747), 5.

[2] Three of the [following] books listed are in the public domain — namely, those by William Paley, James Smith, and William Ramsay. For those, I have linked to a free PDF copy. The PDF that I have linked to for Paley contains both his A View of the Evidences of Christianity, as well as his Horae Paulinae, or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced. Both are very much worth reading, but the most relevant of those to our discussion here is the latter volume.

Evidence and Paul’s Journeys: An Historical Investigation into the Travels of the Apostle Paul(Jefferson White, 2001)

The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Colin Hemer, 1990)

Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts (Lydia McGrew, 2017)

Horae Paulinae, or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (William Paley, 1849 reprint)

The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (James Smith; 1856, 2d ed.)

St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen (William Ramsay; 1909)

Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (four volumes) (Craig Keener; 2015) — in particular the discussion of authorship in volume 1 (beginning pages 402) and the analysis of the “we” passages in volume 3 (beginning at Acts 16:10).

“Just how wrong can Bart Ehrman be about Acts and Paul’s epistles?” (YouTube video by Lydia McGrew)

“The Resurrection of Jesus — The Case from Luke-Acts” (presentation by me)

[3] William Paley, Horae Paulinae or, the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul Evinced (In The Works of William Paley, Vol. II [London; Oxford; Cambridge; Liverpool: Longman and Co., 1838]), 382.

[4] Ibid., 380.

[5] Ibid., 380-381.

[6] Ibid., 293.

[7] Ibid., 383.

[8] Ibid., 359.

[9] George Lyttelton, Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul (The Institute Trust, 1747), 85-86.

Recommended Resources:

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 Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek ( DVD , Mp3 , and Mp4 )

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Is the Bible Historically Reliable? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD , Mp4 , Mp3 Download .

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3DEJ7rr