Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Turek, Frank’ Category

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out the absurdity of those who doubt the historicity of the New Testament.  In a remark biting with sarcasm against modern-day intellectuals, Scalia stated exactly what we’ve been saying regarding the motives of the New Testament writers.  Namely, since the New Testament writers had nothing to gain and everything [...]

Read Full Post »

Simon Greenleaf, the Harvard Law School professor who wrote the standard study on what constitutes legal evidence, credited his own conversion to Christianity as having come from his careful examination, of the Gospel witnesses.  If anyone knew the characteristics of genuine eyewitness testimony, it was Greenleaf.  He concluded that the four Gospels “would have been [...]

Read Full Post »

Despite unending frustration with some early believers, the New Testament writers never do that.  Instead of pulling rank in this way, the New Testament writers seem to stay true to what Jesus said and didn’t say.  Paul, the man who wrote nearly half of the New Testament books (at least 13 of the 27) and [...]

Read Full Post »

While there are reasonable explanations for these difficult sayings, it doesn’t make sense that the New Testament writers would leave them in if they were trying to pass off a lie as the truth.  (In fact, it doesn’t make sense that they would make up a character anything life Jesus.  A weak and dying Messiah [...]

Read Full Post »

Now think about this: If you were a New Testament writer, would you include the embarrassing details if you were making up a story?  Would you write that one of your primary leaders was called “Satan” by Jesus, denied the Lord three times, hid during the crucifixion, and was later corrected on a theological issue? [...]

Read Full Post »

How do we know we have independent eyewitness testimony?  Because 1) each major author includes early and unique material that only eyewitnesses would know, and 2) their accounts describe the same basic events but include divergent details.  Why are divergent details important?  Because if the accounts were all from one source or a single editor, [...]

Read Full Post »

Romans historian A.N. Sherwin-White says, “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd.  Roman historians have long taken it for granted.
Classical scholar and archaeologist William M. Ramsey began his investigation into Acts with great skepticism, but his discoveries helped change his mind.  He wrote:
I began [...]

Read Full Post »

If you accept the plain reading of the text, the New Testament certainly contains eyewitness testimony.  Notice how many times various apostles claim to be eyewitnesses (Acts 2:32; Acts 3:15; Acts 4:18-20; Acts 5:30-32; Acts 10:39-40; I Corinthians 15:3-8; I Peter 5:2; II Peter 1:16; John 19:33-35; John 20:24-30; I John 1:1-2)
- Geisler, Norm and [...]

Read Full Post »

No other ancient book is so well authenticated.  The great New Testament scholar and Princeton professor Bruce Metzger estimated that the Mahabbarata of Hinduism is copied with only about 90 percent accuracy and Homer’s Illiad with about 95 percent accuracy.  By comparison, he estimated the New Testament is about 99.5 percent accurate.  Again the 05 [...]

Read Full Post »

Just how many non-Christian sources are there tha mention Jesus?  Including Josephus, there are ten known non-Christan writers who mention Jesus within 150 years of his life.  By contract over the same 150 years, there are nine non-Christian sources who mention Tiberius Caesar, the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus.  So discounting all the [...]

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »