1. Anything But the Truth:
The Bible’s historicity and reliability is challenged by many theories and accusations (Council of Nicaea conspiracy, psychedelic eucharist, Rome commissioned gospels, authors lied, Christian’s cherry-picked gospels and texts, legendary development, errors and contradictions, Jesus mythicism).
Critics are truly uncritical of one thing, their criticisms. And sometimes the truth is a lot more boring than some of these imaginative lies. While an honest, fair reading may still have objections to the bible, they will not include these low-quality ones that expose a lack of critical thinking and proper study.
Sceptics will believe any of these without evidence and rather than actually defend them, they’ll just throw it out there for you to deal with and refute.
In doing this, they completely reject all the good evidence and scholarship among actual historians.
The standard of evidence required is extremely inconsistent and biased against the Gospels.
If historians took this approach, we could know very little about history.
Occam’s razor posits the simplest theory that they were simply eyewitness reporters at the time they claim to have been in. Only bias takes you further than this.
Sir Robert Anderson assistant commissioner of Scotland Yard and trained lawyer said the gospels “would be accepted as valid by any fair tribunal in the world”
2. Dating & Authorship
This should sufficiently refute any theories of legendary development.
Sceptics claim unreliability because the authors don’t name themselves, but this was very common in ancient literature anyway so that backfires and supports its authenticity.
Authors meet geographical and chronological closeness to events. This is just what a historian wants!
NT scholar Robert Grant of Chicago University “the gospels must be regarded as largely reliable witnesses to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.”
If the texts were written after 70AD, the authors would have been keen to point out fulfilled prophecy (temple destruction) like they do everywhere else! (Judas’s betrayal, famine under Claudius). Some historians date it after the destruction purely because of their assumption of prophecy being impossible, this is circular and bad practice.
Atheist Maurice Casey argues that Mark should be as early as 40AD.
Internal and external evidence show Matthew was writing to Jews, he couldn’t do this after 70AD when they were killed and scattered. Christians fled and were saved because they heeded Jesus’ words.
If it were fiction, it would seem unlikely that the author of Hebrews is admittedly unknown and two of the gospels NOT named after the disciples (Luke, Mark).
William Albright among others say “there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about 80AD.” Also pointing out that “a period of 20-50 years is too slight to permit any appreciable corruption of the essential content and even of the specific wording of the sayings of Jesus.”
1 Cor 15 contains a creed that dates within 5 years after the crucifixion. The creed sums up the resurrections and appearances.
Clear evidence churches were thriving 15 years after crucifixion.
By late 40’s, Christian debates in the city had got the attention of Emperor Claudius
Less than 20 years later persecution began. In 64AD Nero blamed Christians for the fires.
Expansion of early church from 60-300AD described as miraculous and mysterious by historians.
The Muratorian fragment may show the canon list almost complete by the end of the 2nd century.
Constantine paid for 50 copies of the Bible to be made. It is clear from his letter he had no involvement in the content contrary to modern conspiracies without evidence.
If not for the great persecution, we possibly could have had more texts and letters in the NT.
3. Why don’t more sources mention these things?
Argument from silence fallacy. Just because something is not mentioned by a lot of people doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. The devastating eruption of Mt Vesuvius is known because of one brief mention in passing in a letter but no good historian would say it never happened because that would be ridiculous.
It’s always a bad argument if it can be turned around. “IF these things didn’t happen, why aren’t there competing theories.” Instead, what we seem to have is multiple non-biblical sources confirming fundamental things.
It should be noted, almost no one could read or write back then (1 in 10), so of course things aren’t going to be as well preserved and that’s on top of how expensive such endeavors were.
AND the papyri being written on was only ever meant to last 200 years not 2000! The ones we do have were in lucky environments.
AND text burning was a common practice and it occurred to Christians during their early persecution.
4. The writers are biased!
Yeah…and? You’re biased! We all are! You know it is possible to be biased on the side of truth?
You know you’ve lost the discussion when you have to abort the evidence and content to just start pointing out bias. At best it’s a moot point and at worst, self-refuting.
What do people want when they say this? Do they want an eyewitness to the resurrection who isn’t a Christian? Are you serious? Then they would simply say “well they can’t have seen Jesus raised if they didn’t immediately become Christian because of it!”
5. Rome Commissioned Gospels:
Part of this conspiracy theory is that Romans came up with a suffering Messiah to pacify the Jews because of the tensions and the fact they were waiting on a conquering Messiah to liberate them. People spouting this however are likely ignorant to the fact that the Jewish scriptures speak of a suffering messiah, it wasn’t some idea concocted by Rome!
A little bit more respectable Jesus mythicist Richard Carrier denounces this crackpot theory as well.
Why would Rome create a fiction and then persecute everyone who follows it? Incredible historical illiteracy on the part of this theory’s proponents. Apart from Constantine, hate was the only treatment afforded to Christians from Rome. Scholars think Emperor Diocletian commissioned Porphyry (234-305) to write Against the Christians and Philosophy from Oracles. This was the intellectual attempt to suppress the faith.
Why persecute the leaders spreading the fiction that you wanted to be spread? Why kill Peter and Paul and other disciples? They should have been on Rome’s payroll!
Why would the Romans invent a story that calls people to worship the Messiah above all else including to the point of disobeying government when necessary? This happens multiple times in Acts. This takes away their authority not garners it! If Rome was trying to create a deity friendly to emperor worship why invent an exclusive worship of Jesus alone? This caused a lot of “good roman citizens” to rebel after converting to Christianity.
And why create such inexplicable, counterintuitive doctrines like the trinity!?
Why does the NT need 27 books? Why not just one!?
Furthermore, if it was to convert Jews why write it in Greek and not Hebrew or Aramaic!?
Scholars look at the fact that the language in the gospels indicates a pre-persecution time, seeing Rome and Romans portrayed in a neutral or positive light. Whereas the mythicist or extremist will say Rome is painted in a good light because they had the gospels written! Best argument? “Give unto Caesar what is Caesars”
6. Manuscripts and Transmission:
The Old Testament is confidently dated to at least 2 centuries prior to Jesus. It is a lot longer but because scholars presuppose prophecy is impossible, they date them as late as possible. This alludes to Daniel which despite its late dating is still before the predicted (and fulfilled) time of messiah coming and suffering.
The 27 books of the New Testament are based on roughly 30,000 manuscripts. More manuscripts than anything else from antiquity. Runner’s up is Homer’s Iliad with 1,757.
Not only is the quantity far greater, but the time gap between events and manuscripts is also the shortest than any other work.
Add to that, more than a century of intensive textual criticism that showed the NT to have an accuracy of 99.5%, homer’s Iliad only had 95% and any unresolved variants are included in bible footnotes. There is no secret and no misinformation conspiracy. When sceptics refer to the “400,000 variants”, it should be pointed out that 99% of these are negligible copyist errors.
Sir Frederick Kenyon director and principal librarian at British museum “the interval between the dates of original composition and earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.” The corruption would have had to occurred before 100AD because the texts were just so widespread by then. But this isn’t really long enough for corruption according to experts.
The NT is the most evidenced document from antiquity but faces the most challenges to its authenticity…almost something spiritual going on. Why don’t sceptics throw out everything else from history and apply their skepticism consistently?
The texts were the authority, the spreading happened naturally and became ‘viral’. Texts were written in different locations and to different audiences and on papyrus which isn’t expected to last more than 100 years.
No one ever had complete control over the texts to corrupt the message. If you wanted to change something, you would have to somehow change ALL of the thousands of copies. The apostles simply wrote on this papyrus, then others made copies of these, and more and more spread.
Letters and writings were shared among churches and cities in the Roman Empire. They were all individually shared around more and more and gradually embraced. No one gathered a bunch of texts together and edited them or chose which ones will be included or committed any conspiracy like sceptics ignorantly claim.
Despite finding even earlier manuscripts within the last 150 years, the meaning of the bible still hasn’t changed and there wasn’t one new reading came from these new found texts. It only confirms our position.
7. Council of Nicaea:
This was not a group of shadowy men that decided what book would be in the NT.
The Council was created in response to the growing idea from Arius that Jesus was not God.
When it got Constantine’s attention, he called a council in 325AD to settle it. Constantine did not push any views.
1800 bishops invited while 300 attended. No Gnostics, just Christians and Arians.
Persecution had only just ceased; these men were not likely to compromise their beliefs.
Arianism was ripped to shreds and the Nicaean Creed was formed condemning the teaching and confirming what they all believed already.
In the end, everyone except 2 bishops signed. Any speculation of division should really be laughed at.
Moved on to other things like which day to celebrate easter and formally denounced Gnosticism and other sects.
8. Historically Accurate:
Discoveries in relevant fields such as archaeology, are continually silencing sceptic attacks. Joseph Free “archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts.”
Constantly using the bible to correct misunderstandings about history.
Confirmation for the tower of babel, excavations confirm earthquake around crucifixion, Thallus & Phlegon mention an eclipse of the sun confirming the darkness at Jesus’ death, discovered Galilean boat matching expectations from the gospels, evidence for the small towns Nazareth and Bethlehem, of Sodom and Gomorrah destruction, many other discoveries like this.
Fossil-hunters have found several extinct snakes with stunted hind legs called a Tetrapodophis (maybe relevant to God punishing the snake by making it crawl on its belly).
Clark H Pinnock, professor of systematic theology states “there exists no document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies, and offering so superb an array of historical data on which an intelligent decision may be made. An honest person cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon and irrational anti-supernatural bias.”
Sir William Ramsay one of history’s greatest archaeologists noticed the meticulous accuracy in the historical details of Luke, he changed his view of Acts and stated “Luke is a historian of the first rank. This author should be placed along with the greatest of historians.”
In Acts, Luke gets right over 80 historical facts, proper port names, local industries for certain regions, proper lines of boundaries, slang, landmarks, common names, local language variations and there’s archeological evidence for many of the rulers he mentions, you can see why he’s called a historian of the first rank.
If the Jews could have refuted the disciples claims they would have, wouldn’t they?
In the 70’s, the gospels were categorized as Greco roman biography. Historical genre.
If NT was written by eyewitnesses and not a fabrication by imposters, they should be able to get the facts right about the time period (culture, region, historical figures, towns, rulers, cultural aspects, geography, flora/fauna, customs). The broad historical facts in the gospels should be confirmed by other sources. We see secular attestation to life and ministry of Jesus, confirmation in archeology, and it coheres with ancient history.
Names are one of the first things that drop off in recounting stories, but all the names are right and we know because of what the most popular names were during Jesus’ time on earth. And we also know that the common names had an extra description added to the person to better distinguish them “Simon the Zealot” whereas this wasn’t done for less common names “Thomas.”
The gospel writers were obviously intimate with the culture they were writing about. When Jesus tells Peter to get the tax, he finds a shekel equal to 4 Drachma, could you do a currency exchange for money in Mexico 80 years ago? Without technology or lots of information at your disposal? Little details like this strongly exclude the potential of later forging. Scholars can tell when something is really a forgery. All we find is that writers constantly get things right.
Why is it so accurate when compared to known historical data? The authors were under the impression Jesus would be returning within their lifetime, why would there be such meticulous and careful writing so as to always preserve the truth of what they were reporting.
Historians agree Son of Man was one of Jesus’ favorite self-designated titles. One reason for this is that Christians elsewhere in the NT and early church, hardly ever refer to him as that. Why create something you don’t use? This is called the principle of dissimilarity. Another reason, (and one that comes up a lot) is multiple attestation. Another reason, it shows lack of evolution since if anything it has stronger associations to Jesus’ humanity. So we know Jesus gave himself that title right? Now when does he use it? It’s generally agreed that its use was in regards to His earthly ministry, a reference to his death and resurrection, and a reference to future coming and glory. Dan 7:13-14. “The Son of man will come on the clouds”
9. Oral Tradition:
Even if it was written down a couple decades later…so what? It is arrogant chronological snobbery to impose our culture’s poor memory on to them.
In acts when replacing Judas, they wanted to make sure the replacement was with the ministry from the beginning, this is because the apostles were responsible for overseeing the tradition. It’s a judgement of an entirely different culture, our ignorance doesn’t change the facts and their ability to transmit information orally and reliably.
Comparing this to Chinese whispers is as childish as the game itself. In the game the fun is derived from erring the message and it is transmitted in secret. Neither of these are present in the adult conversation we are trying to have about history and reality.
Some things people just don’t forget. Think about 9/11, everyone still remembers where they were and what they were doing.
There are ancient memory techniques that are used even to this day in memory tournaments that are incredible.
Regardless, oral tradition was extremely prevalent and reliable back then. It was common for Jews to have the entire Old Testament memorized by 14.
And as disciples of a rabbi, they would have been expected to memorize all Jesus’ teachings and its clear in the text that Jesus speaks in such a way to make memorization easier (parables, visuals, wordplay, parallelism).
He was preaching for 3 years I think that’s enough time for the disciples to commit it to memory…especially since they would have followed his example and continued to preach the same thing, at what point would his sayings fade out of their minds?
Being written decades later certainly didn’t stop the authors from getting the facts right about the time period (culture, region, historical figures, towns, popular names, rulers, cultural aspects, geography, customs).
The broad historical facts in the gospels are confirmed by other sources. We see secular attestation to life and ministry of Jesus, confirmation in archeology, and it coheres with ancient history. A. N. Sherwin White, classical historian “for Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming” and “any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.”
The disciples were only going around urging everyone that Jesus rose but as for the other miracles during his ministry, everyone already knew and agreed.
10. Errors and contradictions?
When these ‘contradictions’ are raised, explained and refuted, it often becomes clear the person using them doesn’t actually care about the answer. In fact, what’s more likely is that they’ll rattle off another one.
It’s best to make them cite the passages and defend the claim, it may break down immediately once the context is included.
Don’t try to answer them all, ask for their best example and move on. They are commonly used as excuses to justify what they already want to believe.
Sometimes, explaining these ‘contradictions’ only end up proving how authentic and culturally informed the authors were. Like Mt 20:29 and Mk 10:46. Was Jesus going in or out of Jericho? Sceptics seemed to have the upper hand until excavations showed there were actually 2 Jerichosc! An old and new! Brings to mind Jesus saying that God hides his word from the proud and arrogant as this would have required trust in God
You won’t generally get anywhere talking about these as they’re only using them as an intellectual smokescreen. Which ultimately makes them end up looking silly if you have the chance to show them the passage in context!
They don’t care how good your answer is, they’ll use it on the next Christian they argue with. They have no intention of challenging their worldview. If these were genuine concerns for the person, they would have looked into on their own and not simply brought it up in an argument.
Look at all the supposed contradictions that are easily dissolved simply by reading the passages properly and in context. Atheists are obviously just seeing what they want to see. The vast majority stem from uncharitable reading not genuine obscurity.
In the case of the gospels, if contradictions did arise, no expert in this area would think it would mean it’s a fable, in fact they know when gathering witnesses to figure out what happened, there will always be minor discrepancies in people’s stories, it can be a mark of authenticity, just ask J Warner Wallace, a highly successful cold case detective who became a Christian from examining the gospel accounts for himself.
11. Fiction?
This accusation can come in many forms. All of them however, lacking evidence. Calling it fiction is an active claim. Active claims require evidence.
As John Montgomery says “we listen to the claims under analysis and don’t assume error or fraud unless the author disqualifies himself by contradictions and known factual inaccuracies.”
In everyday life we constantly trust eye witness testimony yet when it comes to the bible its more likely doubt stems from simply not wanting to believe it.
There was no such genre of this kind if it were fiction. Writings either claim to be fiction or claimed to be reality, there wasn’t a genre in that period that blurred the two. The sceptic would have to say this is the first. This is a prime example of groundless assumptions the sceptic must make to maintain their position.
And when exactly would the fiction writers have written their fiction? Centuries later? Decades? Where did they write from? Why did they get so many details right specific to the time and place they claim to write about? It’s clear to historians they had geographical and chronological closeness to the events because of their accuracy. Why are some so compelled to ignore the obvious historicity?
Why are there so many things that would have been edited out if it were simply fiction? And if there has been certain corruptions and additions/elisions, why is it never done properly? If there has been any sort of conspiracy or corruption, why are there so many holes and gaps that would have needed to be “edited” why leave so much open for any position? People want to say “That was added to support x” but they also happen to leave all the other verses in that DON’T support x. Why not do it all properly?
To control people: A fair reading and basic understanding of the bible would not come away with the idea the authors are trying to gain any sort of control over people.
The fundamental philosophy running through the ENTIRE Bible is that there is nothing you can do to be saved. In fact, it is a message completely exclusive to the bible. It is all GOD.
Ideas of human rights and freedoms literally spring from the Bible so accusing it of trying to control people would appear to be ironic.
There are also chapters dedicated to following your own conscience and not imposing yours on anyone.
To comfort themselves: So, what would be the motivations of the authors if it were fiction? You may come up with heaven to make yourself feel better, but not Hell.
And you wouldn’t have Jesus sending away those who think they are saved and seemed to be performing miracles and doing the best!
You wouldn’t create hell as an extra detail if you were seeking comfort and you wouldn’t say the adherents are at risk of it perhaps most at risk when being too fundamental!
· You wouldn’t include all the sceptics arguments for them! The NT includes multiple alternatives to the resurrection! Why would you do this if you were trying to convince people of the lie?
And you wouldn’t create a God that requires unprecedented, revolutionary, strict, upright and selfless behavior. You would do what Joseph Smith and Muhammed did in that they issued new commands to support whatever immoral thing they wanted to do, and both restricted the number of wives their followers could have while they could exceed this.
You wouldn’t tell your followers how much they are going to suffer because of their loyalty and you wouldn’t voluntarily suffer! You wouldn’t die for your made-up claims! People might die for a lie they were TOLD but not for a lie they made up THEMSELVES!
You would start your religion nice and far from where you plan on claiming a bunch of miracles and fictional things occurred you wouldn’t run around that very town on the assumption they all saw and heard the same things that you did!
What we shouldn’t see if it is fiction. If you were going to make up a story. Many things can be inserted here such as:
Why would you make the great and holy men and prophets not so great with all their moral failings?
You wouldn’t make women the first witnesses in that culture if you wanted to be taken seriously. This could literally only hurt their credibility, the ONLY reason it would be included is that it was TRUE.
And if you wanted it to gain popularity you wouldn’t make your religion exclusive and monotheistic.
You wouldn’t include all the sceptics arguments for them! The NT includes multiple alternatives to the resurrection! Why would you do this if you were trying to convince people of the lie?
You wouldn’t make your most honourable messiah from a most disreputable place-Bethlehem. Honour is the most prized and valued thing in the ancient world-you know, before Jesus revolutionized the ethics! You can see the genealogical honour they give Jesus through going to great lengths to mention his ancestry to King David. John skips straight to the big one-“he was with God and was God”. Why would you make everything about your most honourable, dishonourable? The fact that he was murdered, the fact that he died by such a painful and shameful method of execution, who in their right mind-without evidence mind you-would believe this was fiction?! I’ll tell you! Someone who really wants it to be!
You wouldn’t make it so counterintuitive is Jesus God or not? Why doesn’t he know everything while the father does? Why wouldn’t it be much clearer? No one disagrees over the main points of a story. Why would Jesus’ power be so questionable? My God why have you forsaken me?
You wouldn’t list a heap of names of eyewitnesses that people could go and question directly to test your claims. You wouldn’t go into details that could be verified. This being the case, there was no opportunity for mistruths to spread.
If it was fiction, who exactly wrote it and when? And where? Why did they get so many details right specific to the time and place they claim to write about? It’s clear to historians they had geographical and chronological closeness to what they wrote about.
Profound goodness from wicked deceivers? You cannot just come up with the most profound and infinitely layered and deep sayings and teachings-that still echo into today-off the top of your head for the sake of a story. Especially if you’re a corrupt and deceitful person!
The philosophies and wisdom in the bible is unprecedented genius. It is an irrefutable given in history circles that the western world and its laws, ethics, philosophy, literature, and culture can be traced back to Jesus’ teachings.
Also indisputable is the significant benefits that are concretized in the psychological literature for religious people. How can liars be responsible for so much good in the world? It wouldn’t just be an inspiring story it would be fraudulent as it makes many truth claims and does not claim to be an inspiring fictional piece.
The parables are extremely powerful, wise and well known. You cant just come up with these things on the fly because you WANT to trick people.
Why does it fulfill the OT is so much detail yet the Jews wouldn’t recognize the clear and obvious fulfillment? Are we to believe only the gospel authors caught on while the rest of Israel was too dumb?
Criteria of Embarrassment: You wouldn’t include so many embarrassing details about yourself and your “messiah”.
Will Durant, trained in the discipline of historical investigation and spent his life analyzing records of antiquity, notes the criteria of embarrassment.
“Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed-the competition of disciples for the high place in the kingdom, their flight at Jesus’ arrest, Peter’s denial, Jesus’ inability to perform miracles, references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty to his mission, his confessions of ignorance to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross: no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. Once again, to invent such a powerful and influential character would be a far greater miracle than any recorded in the Gospels. After 2 centuries of Higher criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of western man.”
Undesigned coincidences: Multiple accounts that interlock in a way that would be very surprising and unlikely if it were fiction.
This is the type of thing that led Jay warner Wallace to his conclusion as a highly successful cold case detective.
Jesus randomly asking Philip where they can get food John 6. Then in John 12 mentions in passing Philip was from that area. In another gospel entirely (Luke 9) we see where the event took place which explains why Jesus asked Philip.
Mark’s feeding of the 5000 just says it was very busy but in John’s account he explains because it was Passover.
Also coheres with history outside of the gospels. In Mt 2, Joseph is scared of Herod Archelaus but we never find out why, he was only ever mentioned once. We learn more from Josephus that he had a bloody reputation.
In Mark 10 where the Pharisees try to tempt Jesus with the marriage question, it was at the same time that the ruler was involved in a war over the very issue. Josephus confirms this war. And in Luke 3, the word for soldier meant he was active and on duty but why if it was a time of relative peace?
Why didn’t Paul know who the High Priest was? (Acts 23) Again we learn from Josephus around 58AD Ananias was deposed and the replacement was murdered with no one to take over next. These things aren’t explained in the text because that’s not its goal, we do have the convenience however of studying history further to find out how and why the NT is still accurate.
12. Unity:
66 books and over 40 different authors, multiple genres, spanning hundreds of years apart in some cases over 1000 years, and varying locations.
You would expect to find more mistakes, cracks, holes and contradictions especially with such subtle doctrines as the trinity which is quite surprising for monotheism yet it still seems to be the case.
This indicates an intelligent mind/force with a message that seems to be guiding the texts throughout history.
Lots of passages isolated wouldn’t make complete sense, but when looked at with the entire Bible then it embeds Christian theology ALL throughout the text. Without Jesus and the New Testament, much of the Old Testament is left hanging on a question mark. Try getting 2 theological authors to agree on something today, anything really.
You might say “well…what’s with all the different interpretations then if its so clear cut?” The answer is people have a lot to gain by twisting scripture. There are many rich preachers. Yet the NT already warns of false teachers and wolves in sheep’s clothing either coming for your money, or to lead people away from the saving knowledge of Jesus. It’s worth noting orthodox Christianity ALWAYS stands out from other doctrines because EVERY false teaching says you have to do something to be saved. No matter what form it comes in, it will command some form of human work. Orthodox Christianity solely relies on what Jesus did for salvation.
Intricate Harmonies or Undesigned Coincidences: For example, divine plurality (the trinity). Zech 2-it says 3 times that Yahweh has been sent by Yahweh. And Zech 4. Prov 30. This is the progressive revelation. Without Jesus coming and the New Testament, much of the Old Testament is left hanging on question marks. Isaiah 63. 3 divine persons here. God represented as father, ‘they will be my children’, the spirit-‘they grieved his holy spirit’, ‘angel of the lord’ which alludes to exodus 23:20-he bears the name of God. Zech 3-the lord uses the lords name to rebuke Satan as if it’s another person. The idea of the trinity is surprising and unlikely invented by humans, this is a monotheistic religion yet has been consistent that this 1 God has 3 persons. This idea isn’t even explicit, its too subtle for each author to just simply catch on and intentionally contribute to the idea.
13.Sources:
Josh & Sean Mcdowell
Mike Licona
What Are the Gospels by Richard A. Burridge
J Warner Wallace
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUqxi2svB3PUHvj-9io2RL5
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TW70EEo4e2onJ4lq1QYSzrY
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUYymBPce08oyuhnHLLkR_B
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVnj0QVWnMTMzmpvuFqCpIv
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXRZs52bpnVfiPM9TD_Ukfo
Commenti