Ten Reasons to Trust the Four Gospels

by
Photo by Jesse Collins on Unsplash

The Christian faith stands or falls on the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Without his life Christianity doesn’t exist. But how do we know anything about Jesus’ life? For two thousand years, Christians have relied on the information found in the four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But can we trust the Gospels? Are they reliable sources for our knowledge of Jesus?

Some answer confidently, “No, the Gospels can’t be trusted” then state one or more of the following objections:

  • The healing and miracle stories sound fictional.
  • They contradict each other.
  • The wording has been changed so much that we no longer know what was originally written.
  • They were written too long after Jesus lived so we don’t know if they are accurate accounts of his life.

Consider, however, the following reasons for trusting the Gospels.

Ten Reasons to Trust the Gospels

1. The four authors convey the same basic message about Jesus. Why is that important? If you had four people tell you the same story, wouldn’t you tend to believe it? While none of the Gospels are identical, they all tell the same essential story:

  • a first-century Jew named Jesus,
  • lived in Israel,
  • taught about God’s kingdom,
  • gathered a group of disciples to himself,
  • performed miracles,
  • got into trouble with the religious authorities,
  • was sentenced to death for blasphemy,
  • was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
  • three days later rose from the dead then
  • appeared to his followers.

Since Jesus is the central figure in all four Gospels and each affirms the items listed above, the differences between them are minor compared to these major similarities.

2. The core message of the Gospels was proclaimed by Paul within 20 years of Jesus’ death. It is true that we don’t know the exact dates when the Gospels were written. In general, scholars place them in the first century, with estimates ranging from AD 60-95 or 30 to 65 years after Jesus lived. However, a compelling case has recently been made that all the Gospels predate AD 70. Nevertheless, here is what Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. . . For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1 Cor 15:3-8, emphasis mine)

The primary message Paul preached in Corinth was Christ: his death, burial, resurrection, and appearances. And this is the same message presented in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So when was Paul in this Greek-speaking city? According to the book of Acts, he was in Corinth for a year and a half while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia (18:11-12). When was Gallio proconsul? About a century ago, an inscription was found at the Temple of Apollo in Delphi, Greece. Written in Greek on limestone, the inscription mentions Gallio and his title proconsul. Since the inscription has been dated to the early 50s, Paul was in Corinth at that time.

This means that the message about Jesus, initially proclaimed in Israel in Hebrew or Aramaic, was being preached by Paul in another country and in another language within twenty years of Jesus’ death. And note that Paul didn’t invent this message; he received it from others—”for what I received I passed on to you”—so that takes us even closer to Jesus’ lifetime. In fact, many believe Paul received this message during his visit to Jerusalem soon after his conversion (Gal 1:18), which may take us to within two or three years of Jesus’ death.

What’s the point? We don’t have many centuries during which the story of Jesus was embellished. We can confidently date the presentation of the core Christian message to within two decades of Jesus’ life, if not earlier. And that message, which corresponds with the Gospels, was “of first importance.”

Note also that we have an eyewitness claim in this mid-first century document—”he appeared to me also”—and Paul’s authorship of 1 Corinthians is not disputed.

3. We can be confident of the original wording. Although we don’t have the original documents, we have many ancient copies or manuscripts. There are almost 6,000 Greek copies of the New Testament or parts thereof and, in particular, more than 2,000 copies of the Gospels. These copies are more numerous and closer in time to the original writings than any other work of ancient literature, with the oldest dating to within 100 years of the original texts. As a result, many scholars believe we can have a high degree of confidence of the original wording. 

But why wouldn’t the original documents have survived? If they were inspired by God, why didn’t God preserve them? Three thoughts come to mind. First, maybe we would have created an idol of the original books. Second, perhaps it would have impeded the spread of the message. For example, having the original books in the original languages may have discouraged people from translating them. Third, God comes to us in weakness. In Jesus, God comes to us in the form of a beaten and executed man. Is it too far of a stretch to imagine God doing the same in ancient and damaged manuscripts? As Paul says, “we have this treasure in jars of clay” (2 Cor 4:7).

Combining #2 and #3 gives us the following: The core story in the Gospels did not come from centuries of embellishment nor changes in the text by ancient scribes.

4. Many of the details in the Gospels sound true to life. 

  • The Gospels record embarrassing details about the disciples. If someone shares an embarrassing story with you, do you think they made it up? Why would someone invent something that makes them look bad? Among scholars who sift ancient documents for truth, this is known as the criterion of embarrassment. Embarrassing details help us to trust the stories. In the Gospels these details include the following:
    • The disciples fail to trust Jesus during the storm and Jesus rebukes them: “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?” (Mk 4:40).
    • Jesus rebukes Peter in the harshest of terms saying, “Get behind me, Satan!” (8:33).
    • The disciples rebuke people for bringing little children to Jesus. But Jesus responds by rebuking his disciples saying, “Let the little children come to me” (10:14).
    • Instead of praying as Jesus commanded, his followers fall asleep (14:37).
    • Peter denies that he knows Jesus three times (14:66-72).
  • The Gospels record embarrassing details about Jesus. If you were fabricating stories to promote the Christian faith, it’s unlikely that you would include these details because they make your leader look weak or questionable.
    • Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Usually the greater or more spiritual person was the baptizer.
    • Jesus was accused of being out of his mind and demon-possessed (Mk 3:21-22).
    • Jesus was unable to perform mighty works in his hometown (6:5).
    • Jesus was ignorant of the end time (13:32).
    • Jesus was executed like a common criminal, on a cross.
  • The Gospels record an embarrassing detail about Jesus’ resurrection. 
    • Women were the primary witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection. In first century Israel, testimony from women wasn’t valid in court (Matt 28:1-10; Mk 16:1-8; Lk 24:1-11; Jn 20:11-18).
  • The Gospels are full of incidental details that seem to come from eyewitnesses. Incidental details are descriptions of minor items that don’t carry significant meaning in the story. Eyewitness testimony often includes incidental details, such as the color of a car, the time of day, or the hair color of a suspect. Here are five examples:
    • “green grass” (Mk 6:39)
    • “an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard” (14:3)
    • a young man running away naked (14:51-52)
    • “the father of Alexander and Rufus” (15:21)
    • 153 large fish (Jn 21:11)
  • The names of people recorded in the Gospels correspond with what we know about ancient names used in Israel from other sources.
  • The names and descriptions of places in the Gospels correspond with what we know about ancient Israel from other sources. These last two points show that the authors can be trusted to convey accurate information about personal names and geography. (See the lecture given by Peter Williams for support.)

(For those with a naturalistic worldview, I know the miracle stories in the Gospels do not sound true. The best I can do is refer you to the abundant evidence for miracles from all over the world found in Craig Keener’s two-volume book Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts.)

5. The authors claim to convey accurate information. Of course, anyone can claim anything but this means that the authors were not attempting to write fiction. They claim to be writing non-fiction.

  • Mark begins this way, “The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah” (1:1).
  • Luke begins, “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (1:1-4)
  • John writes, “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe” (19:35).

*Combining this point with the previous point gives us this conclusion: The Gospel writers claim to be telling the truth and they sound like they’re telling the truth.

6. Archaeological discoveries support the historical accuracy of details in the Gospels. Archaeology is the study of the remains of ancient civilizations. While archaeology gives us a window to the past, it’s limited for the following reasons: it can’t reproduce events, only a relatively small number of remains have been discovered, the remains have to be interpreted. With the limitations of archaeology understood, we can say that this field of research has been favorable to the Gospels. While the list of discoveries is constantly growing, here are a few items worth mentioning.

  • Pilate stone, discovered in Caesarea in 1961. The reconstructed inscription reads, “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.” The Gospels attest to Pilate’s rule in Judea during Jesus’ lifetime (Mk 15).
  • First-century synagogue in Capernaum discovered in 1968 (Mk 1:21).
  • Remains of a first-century crucifixion victim found in 1968 in an ossuary (bone box) with the name Yohanan on it. An iron nail with olive wood was embedded in the ankle bone. Yohanan’s legs were crushed which corresponds with John 19:31-32.
  • Sea of Galilee boat discovered in 1986 at the bottom of the lake and dated to the time of Jesus.
  • Coins with the names of the Herod family—the kings who ruled Israel during Jesus’ lifetime.
  • Nazareth home discovered in 2009 and dates to the time of Jesus.
  • Caiaphas’ ossuary or bone box (Jn 18:14) discovered in 1990 and dates to the time of Jesus. The words, “Joseph, son of Caiaphas” were inscribed on the side. (Some have challenged the authenticity of this discovery.)

So from this very partial list, archaeology supports the following Gospel details: Pontius Pilate was a Roman ruler in Judea, the Herods were rulers in Israel, a man named Caiaphas lived in Israel, people used boats on the Sea of Galilee and they attended a synagogue in Capernaum, Nazareth was a place where people lived, and crucifixion was practiced.

7. Ancient authors support the basic account of Jesus’ life as found in the Gospels. First, we know key details about Jesus and his followers from sources outside the New Testament. Second, none of the information we learn from non-biblical writers contradicts anything in the four Gospels. Here are four examples along with a list of main points for each.

“so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned”[1]  – Flavius Josephus (c. AD 37-100) – Jewish Historian

    • Jesus was called Christ.
    • James was the brother of Jesus.
    • James and his companions were accused and stoned.

“Christians . . . asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.”[2]  – Pliny the Younger (c. AD 63-113) – Provincial Governor

    • Christians had the custom of meeting on a fixed day of the week before dawn.
    • During their meeting, they sang a hymn to Christ as to a god.
    • They committed themselves to live moral lives.

“But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”[3]  – Tacitus (c. AD 56-117) – Roman Historian

    • Nero accused Christians for the fire in Rome.
    • Christians were hated.
    • The founder of the Christians was Christus (Christ).
    • Christus was put to death by Pontius Pilate, who was the procurator of Judea during the reign of Tiberius.
    • The Christian faith originated in Judea.
    • The Christian faith spread throughout the city of Rome.
    • An “immense multitude” of Christians in Rome were convicted.

“The Christians . . . worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.”[4] – Lucian (c. AD 120-180) – Writer

    • Christians worship a man.
    • That man introduced their novel rites.
    • That man was crucified.
    • That man, who was “their original lawgiver,” impressed on them that they are all brothers from the moment of their conversion.
    • Christians deny the gods of Greece.
    • Christians worship a crucified sage.
    • Christians live after the laws of the crucified sage.

8. The resurrection of Jesus explains an odd historical phenomenon. First-century Jews were firmly monotheistic so why did a group of people who worshiped one and only one God start worshiping Jesus, a man who was executed? And why did they begin worshiping him right away? Larry Hurtado provides abundant evidence that the worship of Jesus did not develop over time but began immediately in early Christianity. For example, in 1 Corinthians, written to within 20 years of Jesus’s life, Paul says this:

To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours: (1 Cor 1:2)

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (1 Cor 8:6)

There were other messianic figures who died and their movements ended. What was it about Jesus that propelled this movement to spread all over the Roman world, essentially immediately after his death? The early Christians made this assertion: “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it” (Acts 2:32; cf. 3:15), and that belief explains the spread of early Christianity, which featured the practice of worshiping Jesus.

9. Many people have claimed to have met Jesus—the Jesus of the Gospels. If the Gospels are accurate, Jesus is alive. And if the Jesus who taught, healed, and loved people is alive, people should still be meeting him. In fact, many people have made that exact claim. Some even say that they have had a dramatic encounter with him, such as in a vision or a near-death experience. (For support, see the stories of Colton Burpo, and Ian McCormack.)

10. There are good reasons to think the Shroud of Turin is Jesus’ actual burial cloth. Admittedly, this is a controversial claim, but by all accounts the image on the shroud is remarkable because it contains 3D information of a human who was severely flogged, crucified, with a wound in his side, and the fabric holds real human blood. While the radiocarbon dating put the Shroud in the Middle Ages, there are reasons to believe the dating was inaccurate because the part of the Shroud that was tested was not original.

Conclusion

So let’s put everything together: The four Gospels present a consistent account of a first-century Jew named Jesus of Nazareth who healed many people, taught about God’s kingdom, was arrested, beaten, crucified, buried, then three days later his tomb was empty and his followers claimed that he appeared to them. On a historical and literary level we can trace this account to within 20 years of Jesus’ death, if not earlier, showing that this story was not the result of centuries of embellishment. Nor was it the result of changes in the text by ancient scribes because textual critics have an abundance of manuscripts to compare with each other. Additionally, the authors claim to be telling the truth and their Gospels contain details that sound true to life. For example, details in the Gospels have been corroborated by archaeological discoveries and statements from ancient authors, such as geographical locations and personal names used at the time. Along these lines, the Shroud of Turin contains a remarkable image that corresponds with what happened to Jesus as recounted in the Gospels—severely flogged, pierced in his side, with crucifixion marks in his hands and feet. Furthermore, Jesus’ resurrection explains an odd historical phenomenon: Jewish people, who were staunchly monotheistic, worshiped Jesus and spread this faith throughout the Roman world in the first century. Finally, on an experiential level people continue to claim that they have had an encounter with Jesus or that he has helped them in some way, which makes sense if he really rose from the dead.

Although I have made a rational defense of the Christian faith, reason should never be used to cloud the extraordinary claim at the heart of Christianity—a man was from the dead. Christians should not grow numb to the strangeness of this event, thinking it should be obvious to everyone and assuming arguments alone can convince people. It was not a normal event and Christianity is making a highly bizarre claim.

On the other hand, Christian claims have supporting data and skeptics should grapple with it. I have attempted to make a cumulative argument in this post so debunking one or two of these reasons is not enough to defeat the whole argument.

So what do you think? Do you trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

————————————————————————-

*I have not attempted to prove that every word in the Gospels is inspired by God. The focus has been on the general reliability of the Gospels.

**Two insightful books on the reliability of the Gospels are Can We Trust the Gospels? by Mark D. Roberts and Is the New Testament Reliable? by Paul Barnett.

[1] Josephus, Antiquities 20.9
[2] Pliny, Letters 10.96, trans. William Melmoth, rev. W.M.L. Hutchinson (Loeb, 1915).
[3] Tacitus, Annals 15.44
[4] Lucian, The Works of Lucian of Samosata, trans. H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, vol. 4 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), 11-13.

 

14 thoughts on “Ten Reasons to Trust the Four Gospels”

  1. Just how historically reliable are the Gospels and Acts if even prominent conservative Protestant and evangelical Bible scholars believe that fictional accounts may exist in these books? I have put together a list of statements from such scholars and historians as Richard Bauckham, William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, Craig Blomberg, and NT Wright on this issue.

    Reply

    • Gary, thanks for your comment. I’m sorry, but I generally don’t allow links in my comment section so I removed your link (see my comment policy). As stated at the beginning of this post, I was not attempting to prove that every word in the Gospels is inspired by God. I have read critical literature on the Gospels and I am aware of the statements made by conservative scholars, but each scholar you named still believes that the basic story in the Gospels is reliable. I believe the nine reasons I listed above show why we can trust the overall presentation of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

      Reply

  2. One area that I still struggle with involves Luke’s Gospel. Luke was not a disciple or eyewitness to the events that he writes about. However, he was Paul’s traveling companion, and was considered to be a historian or fact pursuing journalist. Unfortunately, Paul was also not an eyewitness to the events described Luke. Do we know who their sources were for the information that Luke wrote? Where did Luke gather the information? Were the people he spoke with actually eyewitnesses themselves? I understand that Paul was one of those whom Jesus appeared to after his resurrection, but my concern is with the events Luke describes from BEFORE the resurrection.

    The other gospels don’t necessarily have this problem: Matthew was an eyewitness disciple, Mark was Peter’s assistant and translator (Peter being an eyewitness, inner circle disciple), and although the author of John is not expressly mentioned, it infers that it was written by a disciple of Jesus’ inner circle, also an eyewitness. But what about Luke’s gospel? The gospel itself claims that it was sourced from eyewitnesses in its opening, but are there other sources to corroborate that, and who were those eyewitnesses?

    Reply

  3. How would you respond to this statement: Never believe an extra-ordinary claim (such as a dead person sighting) when the eyewitness status of the person making the claim is in dispute.

    Thanks,
    Gary

    Reply

    • Hi Gary,

      I have removed your hyperlink because I don’t allow them in comments.

      You are right to point out that an extraordinary claim is at the heart of the Christian message–a dead man was raised to new life. Christians should not forget this. Regarding your statement, it makes sense to think twice before believing something uncommon, but I don’t think a universal rule—”never believe”-will work. We may have good reasons for trusting a secondhand account. Your statement assumes that remarkable information can only be trusted if it comes directly from an eyewitness, but a lot of what we believe does not come directly from an eyewitness source. For example, we hear all kinds of crazy stories in the news from reporters who weren’t actually there when the events unfolded. Should we not believe any of them?

      Further, in 1 Corinthians 15:8 Paul claims that Christ appeared to him so he is claiming to be an eyewitness. And Paul’s authorship of 1 Corinthians is widely accepted. Although the names of the authors are not actually included in the Gospels, the ancient manuscripts always included an inscription, such as “According to Matthew.” And according to tradition, two of these authors-Matthew and John-were eyewitnesses. I know that scholars can dispute anything and everything, but ancient people had reason to believe that these were eyewitness accounts.

      But all of this, including my post, is only focusing on the logical or intellectual side of things. This means that if everything I have written in this comment and in this post was wrong, there is still something else that will not go away-the experiential side. Many people have had deep and meaningful experiences that have led them to faith in Christ. For example, one man I know who was an atheist is whole life started reading the Bible in his 60s. He said it was like Jesus jumped off the page when he read. He felt that Jesus was right in the room with him. A lady I know who was raised as an atheist said she was dying in the hospital as a young girl. None of the treatments were working so she started praying to different gods to heal her. (She had only read about gods in a children’s comic book.) None of the prayers worked, but when she prayed to Jesus she got better. Both of them had an extraordinary experience that led them to believe an extraordinary claim.

      So the Christian message is highly unusual, and it’s right to think twice before believing something unusual, but I cannot agree to the statement “never believe” because that doesn’t work in the real world and people may have good reasons for believing a secondhand account.

      Reply

      • Hi Les,

        Thank you for responding to my question. You said: “…we hear all kinds of crazy stories in the news from reporters who weren’t actually there when the events unfolded. Should we not believe any of them?”

        When evaluating any truth claim, most university educated people today follow this process:

        –Does the reporter reporting the claim claim to be an eyewitness?
        –If yes, how credible is this reporter? Does this reporter have a reputation of integrity? Does the news agency which employs this reporter have a reputation for vetting news claims before broadcasting them?
        –If the reporter states he is not an eyewitnesses but that he has confidence in the reliability of his eyewitness sources, how accurate has this reporter’s sources been in the past? Would the news agency that employs this reporter have a solid reputation of vetting sources before broadcasting the alleged event?

        Uneducated people latch on to any sensational news and believe it, regardless of the source, whether it be in a supermarket tabloid or a conspiracy website on the internet. Educated people don’t do that.

        When it comes to the claims in the Gospels, we have none of these vetting steps. To begin with, none of the authors of the Gospels explicitly identify themselves or claim to be eyewitnesses! They all write in the third person. In addition, none of the authors claim that every story told within their gospels is 100% historical. They even admit that the purpose of their books is evangelization: “so that you may believe”. They never claim to be writing history texts. Bottom line: we have no clue as to whether or not the authors of the Gospels vetted their sources or which of their stories is historical fact and which are theological/literary embellishments.

        Most modern, educated people demand stronger evidence as a claim becomes more odd or rare (extra-ordinary). If my neighbor, who has a reputation for honesty and integrity, claims he saw a red Corvette yesterday, I am probably going to take him at his word. If however, the same neighbor claims that he saw a group of three foot tall, green, antenna-toting extra-terrestrials abducting a herd of cattle up into their mother ship, 100 feet off the ground, I am going to demand much stronger evidence to believe this.

        So to compare two thousand year old reports of people seeing a walking, talking corpse to a “wild” second hand report by a modern day reporter working for a reputable news agency is just not a valid comparison.

        You said, “Further, in 1 Corinthians 15:8 Paul claims that Christ appeared to him so he is claiming to be an eyewitness.”

        What did Paul say that he saw? (Not what the anonymous author of Acts says that Paul said. What did Paul, in any of his own writings, say he saw?) Nothing! Paul never describes what he saw! For all we know, all Paul saw was a bright light in his bedroom and believed it to be the resurrected Jesus! People on the internet make the same claim today!

        You said, “But all of this, including my post, is only focusing on the logical or intellectual side of things. This means that if everything I have written in this comment and in this post was wrong, there is still something else that will not go away–the experiential side.”

        Bingo! Thank you for this honest answer. No matter what objective, historical evidence we skeptics present regarding the resurrection of Jesus, Christians such as yourself are still going to believe this very extra-ordinary claim based on nothing more than your subjective perception that the spirit of this first century man/god lives within you.

        So I must ask: How reliable are your perceptions of an inner presence? Can you state to me and to your reading public that you are 100% certain that the presence you perceive living within you is that of Jesus of Nazareth?

        Reply

        • Gary,

          I agree with you that we need to be careful about what we accept as truth, but I don’t think most educated people are following the vetting process you mention. This type of research is time intensive and most people are too busy.

          I do think we have something analogous to a recognition of a vetting process expressed in the New Testament. For example, here’s how Luke begins his Gospel:

          Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (1:1-4)

          Regarding what Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 15, here’s what he says:

          For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (vv. 3-8)

          So his personal claim is that he received this information from others and Christ “appeared to me also.”

          Regarding experiential data, it’s important not to downplay it. People all over the world claim to have had a mystical experience. What can these people do with these strange events? The last thing they can do is pretend like it didn’t happen. It will undoubtedly be incorporated into their worldview, giving them one reason, perhaps among many, for a particular belief. If you are interested in the experiential data of religious experiences, I highly recommend reading Encountering Mystery by Dale Allison. He is a Christian professor at Princeton, but the book is not an argument for any particular Christian belief. It is an exploration of religious experience in general using data from a variety of studies.

          I know I set up a dichotomy between reason and experience, but ultimately, I think we need both. My post focuses on the logical side and I’m trying to balance it out with the experiential side in my comments to you. As Pascal said, “The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of… We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart.”

          Reply

          • Good morning, Les.

            How certain are you that the presence you perceive within you is the resurrected Jesus Christ? 100%?

      • “ the ancient manuscripts always included an inscription, such as “According to Matthew.””

        When you say ancient do you mean first/second century? If later wouldn’t that just be copyists adding those names from custom or convention?

        Reply

        • Yes, second century and beyond. We don’t have any original book of the Bible just like we don’t have any original book of any ancient writing. But here’s the key point: We have many ancient Gospel manuscripts and yet “There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels, and there are no copies of the canonical Gospels under different names” (Evans, Jesus and the Manuscripts, 53). So all of the manuscripts attribute the four Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and no one else. From the manuscript data we have, then, as well as statements from the early church fathers there was a consensus on the authorship of these books. And it is a rather strange consensus because all agree that Mark and Luke were not two of the twelve disciples. So if the early Christians falsely attributed these books to these authors, why did they choose Mark and Luke? And how did they arrive at a universal consensus so quickly without even a shred of controversy? This hard data leads some to conclude that the original books likely had these names attached to them.

          Reply

  4. I have found that many Christian apologists are very uncomfortable discussing their perception of Jesus living within them (otherwise known as the “testimony of the Holy Spirit”) with counter-apologists and other skeptics. I once asked evangelical NT scholar Michael Licona this question and he refused to answer it. When I persisted, he claimed I was trying to force him into an “evangelical stereotype”. When I asked Baptist apologist Randal Rauser the same question, he absolutely refused to continue the discussion. Growing up evangelical myself, I know that this is a central teaching of evangelical Christianity.

    Why do you think this question makes so many Christian apologists so uncomfortable, Les?

    Reply

    • Gary,

      I’m not sure how to quantify faith with a certainty percentage.

      Faith is the subjective or personal or experiential side of things, but Christians believe it is rooted in objective, historical data, such as Christ rose from the dead so the two go hand in hand. All Christians believe that certain historical events occurred so the faith itself cannot devolve into mere subjectiveness. Christians may be wrong about the historical events, but according to the tenants of the faith, history matters. There will always be an historical claim at the heart of this particular faith. So if you want to attack the faith, you must focus on the historical side of things. I emphasized this dimension in my ten reasons to trust the Gospels.

      The reason for this is simple: It’s hard to refute experiential data. If you said you had a bizarre dream last night, how could I possibly refute your claim? Personal experiences are personal. But that doesn’t mean they don’t matter. They matter because we are intellectual beings and we are sensory beings, constantly interacting with stimuli in our environment so we cannot ignore our experiences.

      Let’s return to where we started. I posted a cumulative argument giving ten reasons to trust the Gospels. (It was initially eight reasons then I added two more.) You left a comment in May 2019 to which I responded. Almost four years later you left a second comment. In your second comment you asked how I would respond to a universal prohibition on believing extraordinary claims when the eyewitness status of the person making the claim is in dispute. I responded by saying we should think twice before accepting extraordinary claims, but an absolute ban will not work. We may have good reasons for trusting a secondhand account of an extraordinary claim. There are many scenarios we can imagine, such as an eyewitness who saw something amazing, shared it with someone else, then died. Now the only person who knows the account is the secondary witness. With that said, allow me to add something: I agree with you that eyewitness sources matter.

      I could be wrong in my reasoning about your universal rule, but from my perspective it doesn’t really matter because I don’t believe we are limited to this type of data in the New Testament. Although we have secondary sources, we also have primary sources. For example, Paul says that Christ appeared to him in 1 Corinthians 15 and the authorship of 1 Corinthians is not disputed nor is the date in the early 50s generally disputed. So we have someone claiming to have witnessed the resurrected Christ within 20-30 years of Jesus’ death. Was he wrong? If so, how do you know? This takes us back to the futility of arguing about personal experiences as well as noting that an eyewitness claim is made in the NT. More eyewitness data could be added here. In his book Jesus and the Eyewitness, Richard Bauckham argues:

      “the period between the ‘historical’ Jesus and the Gospels was actually spanned, not by anonymous community transmission, but by the continuing presence and testimony of the eyewitnesses, who remained the authoritative sources of their traditions until their deaths” (pg. 8).

      His entire book seeks to support this claim with data. If he’s right, like you, ancient people valued their eyewitness sources. Again, if you want to refute Christian claims, I encourage you to engage this material and seek to dismantle it. (Perhaps you have already attempted to do so.)

      Although your comments have not directly engaged with any of the ten reasons in my post, it seems that you are not impressed with them. If nothing I have said in the post or comments has been even a little persuasive, nothing I add will be helpful. Moreover, in two of your comments, you left links to your post so I can only assume that you are trying to draw traffic from my post to your post. That makes me think the motive is not really about having a genuine conversation. By the way, traffic here is minimal so it’s not worth your time or effort to try to post anything on this site.

      Thanks for sharing that you grew up evangelical. If it’s any consolation I have had many problems with evangelical Christianity.

      I sincerely wish you well.

      You can have the last word, but please keep it to within 300 words, then I will close this conversation.

      Reply

      • “Paul says that Christ appeared to him in 1 Corinthians 15 and the authorship of 1 Corinthians is not disputed nor is the date in the early 50s generally disputed. So we have someone claiming to have witnessed the resurrected Christ within 20-30 years of Jesus’ death. Was he wrong? If so, how do you know? ”

        What did Paul say he saw in his Jesus appearance? Answer: Paul himself, in his own writings, never tells us. For all we know, Paul saw a bright light in his bedroom and assumed it was an appearance of Jesus. NOT good evidence.

        “Although your comments have not directly engaged with any of the ten reasons in my post, it seems that you are not impressed with them. If nothing I have said in the post or comments has been even a little persuasive, nothing I add will be helpful.”

        I accept that Jesus was a real person. I accept that he was a first century apocalyptic preacher who got in trouble with the Jewish authorities and was executed by the Romans under Pontius Pilate. I accept that Jesus’ tomb was probably found empty. So I do accept some evidence related to the Resurrection Belief. However, the rest of the alleged evidence is weak. The strongest evidence Christians claim to have is eyewitness testimony of people claiming to have seen a walking, talking corpse. But experts are divided on the eyewitness status of these claims. Therefore, I suggest that modern, educated people withhold judgment on the historicity of this event (the Resurrection) as that is what most modern, educated people do regarding complicated/extraordinary claims when the experts have not reached a consensus.

        You disagree. But I believe that your disagreement has less to do with historical evidence than it does with your perception that the spirit of the dead man in question lives inside your body at this very moment, whispering to you in a “still, small voice”. How can you not believe in the Resurrection???

        This is why debating most Christians regarding the historical evidence for the Resurrection is a waste of time. No matter what evidence we skeptics present, the Christian’s perception of Jesus living within him or her is going to reject all evidence presented, no matter how strong.

        My question for you, Les: Isn’t it possible that the presence you perceive within you is none other than…you.?

        Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Contact Us