reliability of the gospels

New Video: Are the Gospels Really Anonymous?

by

I’d like to introduce you to my new YouTube channel. It’s called Sunday School Apologetics. I’m excited about this new channel! The idea behind it is to do a Sunday School type of curriculum covering various apologetic topics. The first series is going to be on the historical reliability of the Gospels. Today we start with the genuineness of the Gospels. Were they really written by the traditional authors? Skeptics like Bart Ehrman say that the Gospels were anonymously written and the traditional authors like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were names added long after the disciples were dead. But is this theory right? Here I defend the traditional authorship of the gospels and answer … Read more

13 Good Historical Reasons For The Early Dating of The Gospels

by

Skeptics like Bart Ehrman will use Apollonius of Tyana as a challenge to Jesus’ uniqueness. Apollonius lived in the first century. His birth was supernatural. He also performed miracles and appeared to people after his death. Sounds familiar, right? Critics will then conclude that the story of Jesus isn’t special. Apologists will then retort that the Apollonius’ biography was written long after his death. It isn’t until about 100 years later that Philostratus wrote his biography. Therefore, the story we have about his life couldn’t be based on eyewitness testimony. But the Gospels are based on the accounts of witnesses.  And this is where critics will say “Oh really? The Gospels came long after Jesus’ … Read more

Unexpected Evidence for the Gospels’ Truth From the Names of the People in Them

by

The late Christopher Hitchens said, “The New Testament is a work of crude carpentry, hammered together long after its purported events, and full of improvised attempts to make things come out right.” One example of this alleged makeshift handiwork is the names of the Twelve. If the gospel writers can’t get the names of Jesus’ disciples straight, how can we trust them with other details?  On the face of it, it looks like Matthew and Luke contradict: Matthew 10:2-4: “The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, … Read more

Undesigned coincidences in the gospels: Surprising evidence for Jesus’ feeding of the 5000

by

The feeding of the 5000 is one of Jesus’ most popular miracles. If you grew up in church, you probably saw it depicted on many a flannel graph. You know the story: Jesus was in a deserted place where large crowds were hanging on his every word. When it started to get late, Jesus’ disciples asked him to disperse the gathering to the surrounding villages so they could grab a bite to eat. Rather than sending them home, Jesus took five loaves and two fish and fed the multitude. The young lad who shared his food became famous that day and was sent home with 12 baskets full of leftovers.  Critics of the Bible tend … Read more

A hopeless Bible contradiction? Why do Matthew and Luke give us two different genealogies for Jesus?

by

Early in their respective Gospels, Matthew and Luke both present to us Jesus’ genealogy. But there’s a rather glaring problem between the two records. They are irreconcilably different. Popular skeptical blogger Bob Seidensticker calls this one of the most damning Bible contradictions, a discrepancy that strikes at the foundation of Christian claims. To help me state the objection in more detail, I’ll let Bob do the talking: “The Messiah had to be of the line of David (Jeremiah 33:15–17; Isaiah 9:7), so two gospels provide genealogies of Jesus to validate this requirement. The problem is that we only need to go back one generation, to Joseph’s father, to find a problem. Jacob [was] the father … Read more

3 times archaeology has confirmed the Gospels and shut the mouths of skeptics

by

Liberal scholars and radical skeptics like to say that gospels have more holes than swiss cheese. Aside from the gospels being full of unresolvable contradictions, they also make grave historical blunders. If they were reliable historical documents based on eyewitness testimony, they’d get the details right. Therefore, they’re mere religious fictions. But in recent times many of the holes that critics have tried to poke through the gospels have been filled by the shovel of archaeology. Excavators have come to the rescue and provided a counterbalance to suspicious views against the gospels. Here I’m going to share three examples where biblical archaeology has made the critics look flat-out silly. If that whets your appetite for … Read more

Do the 3 accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts contradict each other?

by

There are three accounts of Paul’s conversion found in the Book of Acts. They’re all a bit different and because of that some critics say they’re at odds with each other. Comparing them, skeptical Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman writes: “the three accounts differ in numerous contradictory details…Clearly we are dealing with a narrative that has been molded for literary reasons, not with some kind of disinterested historical report.” If Luke can’t keep from contradicting himself while telling and re-telling Paul’s conversion, this would cast doubt on if he ever traveled with or even knew Paul very well at all. Let’s look at Bart’s complaints one by one and see if he has a good case against … Read more

Critics say that Jesus never predicted his resurrection. These statements were allegedly put in Jesus’ mouth to further their theology. There are two big reasons why that’s false.

by

Over and over in the Gospels, we read that Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection. Like Babe Ruth, he called his own shot. This prediction may have fallen on deaf ears, but nevertheless, his disciples should not have been surprised on the first Easter. Yet critical historical Jesus scholars tell us that he never really said those things. These were sayings put in Jesus’ mouth after belief in the resurrection. It’s a bit like the story of George Washington admitting to cutting down the cherry tree. It probably never happened even if you did hear it in elementary school. This fun little story was projected backward to make Washington look like he was a … Read more

Are the Gospels “Fake News” Because They Are Biased Sources?

by

This is the age of fake news. Distrust of the media has never been higher. There aren’t bad reasons for that. We’ve all seen the press skewing things to suit a political narrative. Both sides have been guilty. It’s gotten so bad, you even have social media companies trying to combat fake news. Funny enough, they often reveal their own biases in the process. And to add to the irony, on those same platforms, we have a President constantly calling out certain members of the press for fake news! So yeah. We got some trust issues. This is the cultural background we’re living in. In this age of hyper-awareness of bias, Christians have the audacity … Read more

There’s one terrible reason to believe the gospels were written late, and there are 7 historical reasons to believe that they were written early

by

Here’s a question that’s raised by skeptics from time to time. Why were the gospels written a generation after Jesus died? I mean, it’s only the “Greatest Story Ever Told.” Why did it take them so long to write this thing down if it was so important? One terrible reason to believe the gospels were written late: The consensus of critics tells us that the first gospel was written around 70 AD. The other three followed within the next 5 to 20 years. But where does this consensus come from? I’ll be straight up here. This dating comes from historians who rule out the supernatural. You see, Jesus had a lot to say about the … Read more

Is Jesus Alive?