The Bible

Critics today almost take it for granted that the gospels were not written by the people we think they were; that the names on each gospel were added at a much later date.  They further surmise that whoever wrote these books was not relying on any kind of eyewitness testimony for their material. A few […]

If the accounts of Jesus’ life that we have were written by eyewitnesses, that would be considered good evidence for the reliability of their contents.  Most significantly, those portions that carry the most weight both historically and doctrinally in Christian faith–the death, deity and resurrection of Jesus. Let’s turn our attention to Matthew’s Gospel and

If Jesus is God, then would he be in a good position to know whether the Old Testament is reliable in any way.  It seems that that would be a safe assumption to make. The fact is that when you read the gospels, you will see that Jesus has a very high view regarding the

When considering whether a document has within it eyewitness testimony, probably the first question that should be asked is: Does the writer of said document claimed to be an eyewitness or claims to get information from eyewitnesses? I think we have this in the New Testament. When taking the New Testament as a whole, both

All of the New Testament Documents were written before 100 AD In letters written between 95-110 AD, three prominent church fathers [Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp] quoted passages from 25 of the 27 New Testament books.1 Only the brief books of Jude and 2 John were not referenced, but they certainly had to have been written (Jude,

In my last post, I explained what undersigned coincidences are and how they show that when applied can demonstrate eyewitness testimony. What I said in the last post can seem a bit abstract and hard to understand unless more examples are provided. I only gave one example but in this post I like to give