One Christian Thought

How I learned about the reliability of the book of Acts  (Or, the reliability of my sources) I don't really remember exactly when and in what order I came across the books that pointed me to my main sources for defending the fifth book of the New Testament, but of course purchased them after getting them from the library.  What first caught my eye the most was in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Christian apologists Frank Turek and the late Norman L. Geisler(1). In it they documented 84 historically confirmed facts from Colin J. Hemer's The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History . Also, they cited William M. Ramsay's St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen . As probability would have it, what really inspired me to get Hemer's book was something Geisler said to Lee Strobel in The Case for Faith . "The noted Roman historian Colin J. Hemer, in  The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History , shows how archaeology has confirmed not

Sooooo... basically I found more of a historical ground to place my theory that Matthew's account is different than others, along with some new observations, even as critical charges. Here I'm further defending  " Bible Difficulties -- 4 Different Accounts of Empty Tomb Appearances ." I suggest you read it before considering the content of this post, because I deal with many other potential errors in the Gospel narratives of the empty tomb. Last month I finished reading Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible  by apologists Andreas J. Kostenberger, Darrell L. Bock, and Josh D. Chatraw. Ehrman was the source of criticism they were trying to answer throughout the book. They deal with a case of chronological differences: "Luke likely mentions the tearing of the veil prior to the crucifixion [Luke 23:44-45] in order to put it beside other cosmic signs he gives. In other words, Luke is providing a list of cosmic signs without claiming a

I am very proud of this blog project with 6 posts worth of argumentative material, and it is dedicated to anyone who wants to read it, really. My Christian friends are very welcome to grace me with views and grace themselves with what I think is a strong argument that will hopefully strengthen the faith of someone who follows Jesus. My non -Christian friends are also invited to try to grasp, debate, refute, and consider what I have written and the logical outworks that a positive conclusion will have for our very lives. And of course, the same goes for any reader who I do not know, Christian or critical. Now, I would like to acknowledge and thank these sources for their information, in the best order of importance that I can perceive. There were other scholars I was able to use, and they are definitely cited when their material showed up, but these four deserve to be accredited with more significance, apart from everything else. J. Warner Wallace , former cold-case homicide detective

How can this argument prove anything? As you've probably noticed, if you've read the five other posts before this one, my argument that the Gospel of Mark really is the true eyewitness material of Peter is cumulative . This is important. It's not like the only internal evidence we have to go back specifically to Peter is his name as the first and last Disciple mentioned, and that there are few pieces of embarrassing testimony, say just Jesus coming from Nazareth and the Disciples being thick-headed sometimes. Instead, there is 25+ pieces of embarrassing testimony (different scenarios are sometimes clumped together), and 21 of those examples are left theologically unexplained. Here is the links to read my "True Lost Gospel of Peter" Updated and Expanded blog project in order: Introduction Part 1: NON-legendary Claims Part 2: Embarrassing Testimony Part 3: Theology Theory, Primary Considerations Part 4: Theology Theory, Less Direct Issues The thing with cumulative c

Theology theory does not fit Peter's nature. Accept the church tradition that the ring leader of the Disciples was martyred for his faith or not, it is not debatable that he did convert back to belief in Jesus after the crucifixion. Therefore, he surely suffered and definitely was aware that he was risking death because of his faith. For more information, see this three page pdf located here that argues for the resurrection by going to it as the foundation for the Christian faith (i.e. something like not proving Jesus by proving his other miracles since the Gospels are accurate).  With this in mind, Christian apologist Frank Turek and the great late Norman Geisler wrote: "There's no reason to doubt, and every reason to believe, the New Testament accounts. While many people will die for a lie that they think is truth, no sane person will die for what they know is a lie. The New Testament writers and other apostles knew for sure that Jesus had resurrected, and they demonstr

Dr. Robert Miller took part in a debate between William Lane Craig and former chairman of the Jesus Seminar, Dr. John Crossan, whom he supported. When I read Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? , I must say that I was quite disturbed by the idea which they pressed. Miller explained it here: "We need to ask: Who is the audience of the Gospels? For whom did the Evangelists write? The answer is clear: the Gospels were written for Christians. They presuppose that their audiences already believe in Jesus. Although a few outsiders may read a Gospel, it is most unlikely that any of them will come to believe in Jesus by reading that text. This is especially so in the case of the resurrection stories. How likely is it that a Jew or a pagan would read one of these stories and then conclude that Jesus had been physically raised from the dead and that therefore he is God? No, the resurrection stories presume a friendly audience, people who already believe that Jesus has risen. The stories pr