The proposal that someone can resurrect after being dead for three days is often a very tough product to sell in todays’ westernized self-proclaimed intellectual culture, which is primarily dominated by naturalists who claim that nothing can occur outside of the laws of nature. Did the resurrection of Jesus Christ really take place and if so, what are the best arguments for this?
The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy had not been established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-Reformation period. The critic would argue how could Jesus have believed in a view that was not in existence until 1,500 years after his life. How would you respond?
The whole Bible is stamped with the Divine “Hall-Mark,” but the Gospel according to John is first among equals. Through it, as through transparency, we gaze entranced into the very holy of holies, where shines in unearthly glory “the great vision of the face of Christ.
LUKE 22:39-47 NTBDC: How is it possible that Matthew, Mark, and Luke could have known what Jesus was praying at Gethsemane? Even though Jesus was only a stone’s throw away from them, they were sleeping.
John 5:39-40 Updated American Standard Version (UASV) 39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is these that bear witness about me. 40 And yet you do not want to come to me that you may have life.
Modern-day biblical scholarship today does not allow for any certainty. Even if a scholar is sure of something, he must conceal that certainty in ambiguous terms like "it seems," it is possible," or "possibly." Being scholarly today is to be skeptical and content with one's uncertainty.
All who know anything about Jesus, know that he lived almost his entire life in Nazareth, and was known as the Nazarene. Yet, he was born some 90 miles [150 km] away in Bethlehem? Why, late in her pregnancy would Joseph and Mary make such an arduous journey?
Virtually all reputable scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. Reconstructions of the historical Jesus are based on the Pauline epistles and the Gospels, while several non-Biblical sources also bear witness to the historical existence of Jesus.
PROBLEM: Matthew says here, "even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him." However, according to Luke, only one reviled Him (Luke 23:39) while the other one believed in Him, asking, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom" (Luke 23:42).
The book PAUL AND LUKE ON TRIAL deals with their reputations, the authenticity, and the trustworthiness of their New Testament books (Acts and Galatians), which Bible critics have sought to undermine for centuries. Sadly, this attack also comes from “the new generation of evangelical scholars [who are] far more comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty than previous generations.” (Wallace forward, Page xii) Herein the Bible critics and modern evangelical scholars are the prosecutors in this trial, and Andrews is serving as the Christian apologist in defense of the Apostle Paul and the disciple Luke. Andrews will take on the Bible critics who have dissected the Word of God until it has become the word of man and a very jumbled word at that.