One Christian Thought

Everything listed on bullet points are either material that cannot be found elsewhere on my blog or are not explained in the essay itself. This  historical thesis essay  is from a while ago. It looks ugly to me, compared to other things, and any arguments worthwhile in it I will advance elsewhere sometime. But it has some good points.  Skeptical scholars are usually not labeled as such, so these are them: Norman Perrin, John Crossan, Rudolf Bultmann, Bart Ehrman, Jacob Kremer, Gerd Ludemann, Paula Fredriksen, and Reginald Fuller. The empty tomb passes two pieces of criteria for historical authenticity: contextual credibility and multiple attestation. Robert Jastrow explains that naturalistic presuppositions are not reasonable. My argumentative essay  is aesthetically pleasing, at least to me.  Jesus's crucifixion is reported by two non-Christian great historians. Jesus definitely died on the cross -- He did not survive. Luke, the historian appealing to Gentiles,...

This google doc is an 8-page podcast transcript defending the historicity of Luke, Mark, and John. I put Luke-Acts in the title of this blog post because Luke and Acts are so closely related and similar to one another they can be referred to in such a way, and Acts's historicity is defended with some evidence, but mainly to only support the Gospels. Also, everything about the book of Mark comes from this early blog post I wrote about it , so there is nothing new. There are no formal citations, and a lot of evidence isn't cited at all. If that bothers you, just ask me about it in the comments below. Furthermore, my conclusion that the Gospels are completely accurate and trustworthy is arguably insufficiently proven by the evidence I offer. But that's okay with me because I am only trying to give strong evidence for certain Gospel claims, which make it more likely that they got other events correct. My conclusion is a faith statement, which can be further supported by ot...