One of the most powerful tools in persuasion, irrespective of the credibility of what you are saying, is confidence. Assertions delivered with certainty and rhetorical force can often sound very convincing to an untrained audience. For the uninitiated, confidence is very easily, and subconsciously, taken as a proxy for competence.
On Undesigned Coincidences: A Reply to Dan McClellan Read More »
Careful scholarly critique is often very valuable in helping one to refine and better nuance arguments and discover potential vulnerabilities. In the present case, however, the attempted rebuttals offered by John Nelson illuminate the robustness of the arguments rather than their weaknesses.
On the Historicity of the Feeding of the Five Thousand: A Reply to John Nelson Read More »
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. In this essay, I shall lay out in detail why Paul’s Damascus road conversion constitutes powerful evidence of the truth of Christianity.
The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and its Evidential Value (Revised & Expanded) Read More »
The cumulative force of the incidental agreements between Acts and these four epistles strongly supports the conclusion that Acts is high-resolution historical reportage. Taken cumulatively, undesigned coincidences provide powerful evidence for the reliability of Acts as an historical account and confirm that its author, Luke, was well informed, close up to the facts, and habitually scrupulous. This profile comports well with Luke’s own claim to have been Paul’s travelling companion for much of his journeys.
The Book of Acts is High-Resolution Reportage Read More »
An argument for Christianity that seldom receives adequate attention is the Christological Trilemma, most popularly associated with C.S. Lewis, though also developed by other authors preceding him such as G.K. Chesterton. In this essay, I shall give a survey of the Christological Trilemma, while supplying additional nuances to the argument as traditionally formulated.
Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? Reviving C.S. Lewis’ Trilemma Read More »
The justification for the Scriptural canon does not depend on circular reasoning nor on some arbitrary ecclesiastical decree. Rather, it rests on the person of Christ himself , and his commissioning of the apostles as Spirit-guided witnesses of his teaching. This framework provides a coherent epistemic justification of the canon that is consistent with the Protestant affirmation of sola scriptura.
From Christ to Scripture: A Coherent Framework Read More »
There is a vast array of evidences, both internal and external, that reveal that the fourth gospel is composed by an individual who is extremely well informed, close up to the facts, and habitually scrupulous. This lays the foundation for multiple lines of argument for the truth of Christianity.
The Evidential Value of John’s Gospel to the Case for Christianity Read More »
McClellan’s tone may suggest confidence, but his failure to engage seriously with the subject leaves the impression of bluster rather than substance.
Responding to Dan McClellan on the Resurrection Accounts Read More »
Any discussion of the evidence for the resurrection must first ascertain what the original apostolic witnesses claimed and whether those claims are best explained by the resurrection, or by some alternative hypothesis.
The Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidential Contribution of Luke-Acts Read More »
The book of Acts recounts various miracles performed by Paul and the other apostles, as well as the deacons Stephen and Philip. If it can be shown that these miracle reports substantially represent the testimony of these individuals, then this is an important aspect of the testimony that must be accounted for.
The Miracles in Acts, and Their Evidential Value Read More »