The text is of evidential value given that it allows us to establish, in harmony with other independent lines of evidence, that the resurrection claim goes back to the apostolic eyewitnesses themselves.
The Evidential Value of 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 to the Case for the Resurrection Read More »
It is a common misstep made by many atheists to think that if a particular piece of evidence fails to logically entail a conclusion, then that same piece of evidence also fails to support the said conclusion. However, this is poor epistemology. A piece of evidence may be confirmatory of a conclusion without establishing it.
Should Christians Use the Argument from Martyrdom? A Reply to Bart Ehrman Read More »
Richard Carrier is an ancient historian who has risen to prominence as the lead advocate of Jesus Mythicism, a school of thought that entertains the idea that Jesus of Nazareth may never have existed at all.
All of the contradictions Ehrman alleges between Acts and Paul’s letters are the result of over-readings, tendentious interpretations, and arguments from silence. The forcefulness that Ehrman ascribes to those, combined with his dismissal of the difficult details Luke gets right concerning geography and other matters as “completely irrelevant” is astounding, and really reveals his unscholarly bias against the New Testament.
Hard Evidence the Book of Acts Was Written by an Eyewitness? A Reply to Bart Ehrman 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 »
Jaros does not seem to appreciate the value of casualness. He fails to understand how an undesigned coincidence can occur in the same document, or how a writer might provide information that unintentionally corroborates (in a manner that can be detected) some fact that the said author is also aware of.
Defending Inter-Synoptic Undesigned Coincidences: A Response to Kurt Jaros Read More »
Since it is a fair assumption that Ehrman has chosen his best and, to his mind, most convincing examples of alleged contradictions in the gospels and Acts, the abject failure of Ehrman’s proposed contradictions should give us renewed confidence in the substantial trustworthiness of the Biblical accounts.
Finding Contradictions Where There Is None: A Review of Jesus, Interrupted (Part 3) Read More »
An unexplained allusion refers to when a source mentions superfluous details that are not relevant to the story. Typically, when inventing a story, one would want to minimize unnecessary details, especially if those unnecessary details are subject to investigation.
Unexplained Allusions and the Credibility of the Gospel Accounts Read More »
This category of evidence, though seldom discussed in contemporary apologetics literature, contributes to the cumulative case for the substantial trustworthiness of the gospel accounts.
Artless Similarities: Another Category of Evidence for the Reliability of the Gospels Read More »
With Bart Ehrman I regrettably have learned never to trust him to accurately represent his sources since, from past experience, I know him to be misquoting or misrepresenting his sources far more often than he accurately represents them.