#12: I Once Was an Atheist: the Thoughts I Had on My Journey from Belief in Atheism to Belief in the Biblical God, and the Feasibility of God’s Existence

(For much-more information about this blog, see the home page at https://reasonbasedfaith.com/.)

1-1. I once was an atheist

(Note: the adverb “once” has multiple definitions. I use it to mean “at some indefinite time in the past: formerly”—as it’s defined in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. This is similar to saying, “At one time, I was an atheist.”)

(Second note: these sections [1-1 through 1-11] present a conceptual framework as to the nature of atheism, the two types of atheists, and the feasibility of God’s existence. In my writing, a “section” is a group of paragraphs delineated by a numbered heading specifying the title of that section. These headings, therefore, are navigation aids.)

I’m Roger Owen, a Christ-follower or Christian, and also a former atheist. That is, years ago, I believed and wholeheartedly embraced atheism—“the doctrine or belief that there is no God.” (Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary) The American Heritage Dictionary defines atheism as: “Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.” 

Because of factors that I’ll explain, I believe that an atheist should ideally be defined as a mature human being who believes that God probably doesn’t exist. This is precisely who I was as an atheist.

Now, I know that, in recent years, some atheists have proposed a new definition—that atheism is “a lack of belief in God.” The reader may understand why I view this as imprecise and overly-inclusive: if we interpreted this new definition strictly, anyone—or presumably, anything—that lacks a belief in God would be an atheist! Therefore, since all human babies, animals, plants, and inanimate objects lack a belief in God, they’re all atheists!

But is it reasonable to call the Sun and the Moon atheists? Is a cactus plant an atheist? Are dogs and cats atheists? Is a newborn baby an atheist?! These are foolish implications arising from an inaccurate definition!

Here’s a principle that should be obvious: an atheist must understand the concept of God in order to deny His existence, or to minimize (in his or her mind) the probability of His existence. From my perspective—and since the traditional definition had been universally accepted for centuries—an atheist actively believes that God probably doesn’t exist. Accordingly, only a human being with conscious awareness and an understanding of these issues can be an atheist.

1–2. Two types of atheists and the feasibility of God’s existence

I divide atheists into two types: those who try to feel certain (or almost certain) that God doesn’t exist, and those who know full well that, because of the limitations of human knowledge, no one can be certain or even almost certain.

For example, from the biblical description (Psalm 139:7-10; 2Corinthians 12:2-4; Revelation 4:1-3) it’s at least feasible that, if God exists, He could live primarily in other space-time dimensions (like our length, width, height, and time)—but that His dimensions are out of our view; they’re imperceptible to us. If God does exist, then this is at least a possibility that cannot be logically excluded because we have no evidence against this possibility.

In fact, in a particular version of string theory in physics, seven additional dimensions are presumed to exist—which at least points to other dimensions as a scientific possibility. (https://www.space.com/string-theory-11-dimensions-universe.html)

Since skeptics (of God’s existence) have posited the existence of trillions of other entire universes that exist in other dimensions (that are imperceptible to us), this hypothesis—that God could exist in other dimensions—seems mild in comparison! (See sections 6, 6A, and 7 of Post #13 for more information on the multiverse.)

Therefore, assuming that “God almost certainly does not exist” (as some atheists do) is illogical or contrary to reason. It’s entirely conceivable from the biblical description that, if God does exist, He might live in other dimensions that are imperceptible to us. This leaves us with no warrant or justification for assuming that “God almost certainly does not exist,” for He may well exist if He lives in these other dimensions, as the Bible implies. 

In short, since we can’t see into other dimensions, God may be there—we can’t reasonably exclude or minimize the possibility that God could exist in other dimensions. He may well exist in them if the Bible’s description is accurate. Thus, we can’t reasonably assume that, “God almost certainly does not exist.”

1-3. An intelligent source as an inference

For example, it’s hypothetically conceivable that a deistic God created the universe and then retreated into other dimensions that we can’t perceive. (By definition, a “deistic God” is one that created the universe, but then didn’t do anything with it or in it after its creation.)

However, I don’t believe in deism (in part) because the presence of large amounts of specified algorithmic information (numerous sets of step-by-step instructions on how to build a particular organism, in the developmental regime of complex multicellular organisms, such as mammals, especially humans)—the presence of large amounts of this information strongly argues for the existence of an intelligent source, who may be a theistic God (one who intervenes in the universe He has made).

Why? In all of our experience, large amounts of specified information of this sort (step-by-step instructions) only come from an intelligent source. Hence, it’s an inference to the best explanation (not God-of-the-gaps reasoning) to conclude that this large amount of specified algorithmic information (in the developmental regime of multicellular organisms) probably came from an intelligent source, who could be a theistic God or (as some atheists think) a space alien! (Cf. Dr. Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, HarperOne, 2021, chapters 9, 10, 14, 15, & 20; Dr. Fazale Rana, biochemist, author of Chapter 12 of Thinking About Evolution, RTB Press. 2020; Does Information Come from a Mind? Too Good to Be True: Evolution and the Origin of Bioinformation.)

For this and other reasons, Dr. Stephen Meyer wrote: “It follows that the standard neo-Darwinism mechanism does not provide an adequate explanation for the origin of the genetic information necessary to produce the major innovations in biological form that have arisen in the history of life on earth.” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 10, p. 258)

Respected biologists, like Gerd Müller and Stuart Newman, have expressed the same problems with neo-Darwinism as Dr. Meyer. They’re saying essentially, “Neo-Darwinism doesn’t work; we need a new theory.” (Cf. Ibid, Chapter 10, pp. 242-258)

1-4. Much new information is required, but it wouldn’t be preserved

As if that weren’t enough, a microbiologist and a professor of engineering, Olen R. Brown and David A. Hullender, co-authored a peer-reviewed paper that was published in the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology. This paper, titled Neo-Darwinism Must Mutate to Survive, precisely identifies the underlying reason why random mutations plus natural selection can’t produce “complex, major, new body types and metabolic functions.” (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000347)

The problem again concerns major innovations in biological form—major new body types suddenly appearing in the fossil record with no antecedent precursors; i.e. no evolutionary ancestors. (The Cambrian Explosion is the best-known example.) These innovations require a series of mutations that would, in the intermediate stages, provide no survival advantage to an organism. Hence, these mutations would likely be eliminated from the genome or genetic content, especially within a community of organisms and over several generations. This would lead to stasis, not evolutionary progress.

Specifically: much new information is required—more than what would be preserved in the genome (DNA or genetic content). An entire sequence of specific mutations is required to produce “complex, major, new body types and metabolic functions.”

But these specific mutations (1) are improbable due to the fact that mutations occur randomly, and (2) wouldn’t be preserved in the genome in the intermediate stages of this process, due to a lack of a survival advantage arising in these stages.

That is, the mutations that do occur would not be conserved or preserved in the genome in the intermediate stages—not until a survival advantage resulted, but this occurs only in the final stage of the process, when the new body type or metabolic function is complete.

For both of the above reasons, random mutations plus natural selection are unable to produce “complex, major, new body types and metabolic functions.” Another factor must be involved.

1-5: The authors of the paper describe the problem

The authors of the paper state that: “…survival of the fittest is inadequate to conserve individual changes [i.e. mutations] in multiple genomes [i.e. the DNA or genetic content of multiple organisms] where the individual changes generate no increased [survival] fitness.”

Continuing: “…Thus, survival of the fittest is illogical when proposed as adequate for selecting the origination of all complex, major, new body-types and metabolic functions because the multiple changes [i.e. mutations] in multiple genomes that are required have intermediate stages without [survival] advantage; [natural] selection would not reasonably occur, and [survival] disadvantage or death would logically prevail.” (“Neo-Darwinism Must Mutate to Survive,” Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology,Volume 172, August 2022, pages 24-38. I added the bracketed expressions for complete clarity.)

Thus, when multiple mutations in multiple genomes are required to produce a new characteristic (part of a new body plan or metabolic function), in the intermediate stages, there is no increase in survival advantage. Natural selection would therefore not fix or establish the new characteristic in the population because a survival advantage is required to do so. Consequently, no evolutionary change would result; instead, there would be stasis. Another factor besides mutation and selection must be responsible.

As an example, the authors of the paper point to the Krebs Cycle, a metabolic pathway used by all life forms that requires 12 enzymes. They say that the probability of producing all 12 enzymes by mutation and selection alone is one chance in a thousand times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion times a trillion (i.e. one chance in 10 to the 51st power).

Therefore, to say the least, it’s likely that another factor was involved—because these mega-changes have occurred repeatedly in the fossil record. The Cambrian Explosion is the best-known of a number of mass-speciation events; i.e. in which organisms arose from no apparent evolutionary precursors (i.e. ancestors). (Cf. Dr. Stephen Meyer. Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 10.)

1-6: The probable factor

What is that other factor? The authors of the paper conclude that the only thing that will salvage neo-Darwinism is if biologists find a process that “looks forward” (i.e. to at least guess the result of an action), is “nonrandom,” and is “deterministic” (i.e. able to determine an outcome).

I would argue that the only process that looks forward to guess a possible result, is nonrandom, and is able to determine an outcome is intelligence! For more information on this peer-reviewed critique of neo-Darwinian theory, see the following synopsis: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/03/peer-reviewed-paper-neo-darwinism-must-mutate-to-survive/.

Thus, the neo-Darwinian mechanism (of random mutations plus natural selection) would likely lead to stasis or to microevolution (one mutation that has a survival advantage), not to macroevolution (a series of mutations, each one of which is necessary to produce a survival advantage). The major innovations in biological form (major new body types) that have occurred in the fossil record have required a series of mutations or macroevolution (to produce extensive changes in anatomy), not merely microevolution (one mutation would only produce a simple change; for example, in hair color).

Therefore, the only conceivable way to overcome this hurdle (of needing a series of mutations to produce extensive change) is to have a massive infusion of algorithmic information into an organism’s genome to, in effect, produce a whole series of mutations at one time and thus, to immediately provide a survival advantage, which will establish the mutations in the population. With a massive infusion of information (effectively a whole series of mutations), a survival advantage is immediately imparted; this preserves the new information within the population. (A series of mutations occurring sporadically, by contrast, would likely be eliminated.)

This apparently has happened because of the major innovations in biological form (body type) that we see in the fossil record (as in the Cambrian and other mass-speciation events). But where did this massive infusion of new information come from? The only feasible sources of a massive infusion seem to be either God or space aliens!

As I indicated, since large amounts of new algorithmic information (step-by-step instructions) always (in our experience) come from an intelligent source, it’s an inference to the best explanation (not God-of-the-gaps reasoning) to conclude that the large amounts of specified algorithmic information (within the DNA of complex multicellular organisms) probably, at least in part, came from an intelligent source—who could be a theistic God (one who intervenes in the universe He has made) or (as some atheists think) a space alien! (Cf. Dr. Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, chapters 9, 10, 14, 15, & 20; Drs. Anjeanette Roberts, Fazale Rana, Sue Dykes, Thinking About Evolution, RTB Press. 2020, especially chapters 10-24.)

1-7. What about the space alien hypothesis?

Believe it or not, there’s a “space alien” hypothesis that’s popular among some atheists! Since it’s very difficult to imagine how a series of mutations could arise within the genome of an organism (to produce a major change in anatomy), some atheists have suggested that intelligent space aliens might have visited Earth and introduced or “seeded” primitive life forms to the Earth—from which, they say, all other life forms evolved. This is called the “panspermia” hypothesis.

This, the original version of the panspermia hypothesis, couldn’t account for the repeated, major innovations in body types that we see in the fossil record (the Cambrian Explosion is only the best-known of these events; cf. Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 10). But by tweaking this hypothesis and saying that space aliens repeatedly visited Earth and introduced large amounts of algorithmic information into the genomes of organisms each time they visited, we potentially could account for the repeated innovations—except for one problem.

Intelligent space aliens couldn’t be the only source of new biological information within organisms. The question needs to be asked, “Where did these space aliens get the biological information that was required to get them going as a species?” Some say, “From other intelligent space aliens!”

But then, where did the very first intelligent space aliens in the universe get their biological information? There were no other intelligent space aliens that preceded them! This information could only be explained by an intelligent Designer who is transcendent to the universe and, at the same time, immanently present within it; that is, a theistic God.

Hence, I reject deism as an inadequate explanation of this phenomenon of repeated, major innovations in biological form or body types. (I also reject deism because of the impressive accuracy of Luke and because of the logic that I applied to Paul’s conversion, as we’ll discuss. Cf. Dr. Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 13, pp. 318-323.)

Dr. Meyer therefore concludes about this “space alien” hypothesis: “Panspermia might in theory explain the origin of biological information on earth, but it does not explain the ultimate origin of biological information.” (Ibid, Chapter 14, under Figure 14.2, p. 356)

Dr. Meyer made another point concerning this hypothesis, along with the fine-tuning of the universe (which I explain in Post #13): “…panspermia certainly does not explain the origin of the cosmological fine tuning. Since the fine tuning of the laws and constants of physics and the initial conditions of the universe date from the very origin of the universe itself, if intelligent design best explains the fine tuning, then the designing intelligence responsible for the fine tuning must have had the capability of setting the fine-tuning parameters and initial conditions from the moment of creation.

Continuing: “Yet, clearly, no intelligent being within the cosmos that arose after the beginning of the cosmos could be responsible for the fine tuning … It follows that an immanent intelligence (an extraterrestrial alien, for instance) fails to qualify as a causally adequate explanation for the origin of the cosmic fine tuning.” (Ibid, Chapter 13, p. 322)

1-8. The law of gravity can’t do it

Atheistic physicist Stephen Hawking and his colleague, Leonard Mlodinow, wrote in their book, The Grand Design, the following statement: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”

I find it sadly bizarre that such a logically-absurd statement can come from two respected physicists, who certainly should know better! This was obvious to me before I consulted other sources, which, of course, confirmed my impression.

Hawking and Mlodinow apparently have studied physics well over the years, but are relatively untrained in matters of philosophy and logic. Dr. John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, stated: “…one of the main tasks of philosophy is to train people in the art of definition, logical analysis, and argument.” Dr. Lennox went on to lament “the lack of education in basic philosophy offered to scientists.“ (God and Stephen Hawking, Oxford: Lion Hudson Limited, 2021, Chapter 2, pp. 28, 32-33)

Hawking and Mlodinow’s statement may have persuaded those who are uninformed, but this is a very fundamental misconception from a logical perspective—for three different reasons, not merely one.

1-9. The first reason

First, it’s absurd to say that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” because, in order to do that, the universe would have to exist before it existed—which is a logical contradiction and therefore incoherent. The universe can’t create anything at all at a time when it doesn’t exist! In order for the universe to create something, it must first exist because non-existing things have no capacity to do anything, much less create a universe! Something that doesn’t exist has no capacity or capability; before it exists, it’s simply a figment in someone’s imagination! (In the case of the universe, in God’s imagination.)

Professor John Lennox explained it this way: “If we say ‘X creates Y,’ we presuppose the existence of X in the first place in order to bring Y into existence. That is a simple matter of understanding what the word ‘creates’ means. If, therefore, we say ‘X creates X,’ we imply that we are presupposing the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. This is logically incoherent, even if, as Hawking does, we put X equal to the universe!”

He added: “To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its own existence sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland, not science. Only something that exists can create, and if it exists it doesn’t now need to be created.” (God and Stephen Hawking, Chapter 2, p. 34)

1-10. The second reason

Secondly, Dr. Meyer stated that “…this idea conceals an imprecision in thought and makes what philosophers and logicians call a ‘category mistake.’” (Return of the God Hypothesis, Chapter 17, p. 436)

Dr. Meyer specified that, “The law of gravity does not cause material objects or space and energy to come into existence; instead, it describes how material objects interact with each other (and with space) once they already exist. The law does not cause gravitational motion, nor does the law have the causal power to create a gravitational field, or matter or energy, or time or space. The laws of physics describe the interactions of things (matter and energy) that already exist within space and time.” (Ibid)

Meyer added: “The laws of physics represent only our descriptions of nature. Descriptions in themselves do not cause things to happen.” (Ibid, p. 437)

In other words, the law of gravity is a mere descriptor, not a causal agent. The law of gravity merely describes what objects having mass do in the presence of one another. But “before” the universe existed (for the moment supposing that we can speak of a time before time), there were no objects having mass! All matter, space, and time came into being exactly when the universe came into being! Thus, “before” the universe existed, the law of gravity was irrelevant.

1-11. The third reason

In fact, saying that the law of gravity can create a universe is like saying that, because of the laws of engineering and combustion, a car will create itself and pop into existence out of nothing! I don’t think so!

What’s missing in these examples is personal agency—people have to design and build cars, and God (an intelligent Designer and Creator) has to design and build a universe!

Just how much this is true is shown clearly in Post #13, on “Why the Fine-Tuning of the Universe Unquestionably Demonstrates the Existence of God.” There are features of our universe (and of a hypothetical multiverse) that are amazingly fine-tuned, showing that an intelligent Designer and Creator of our universe (and possibly of a hypothetical multiverse) exists.

I know that atheists assume that the hypothetical existence of a multiverse (the supposedly-existent array of trillions of trillions of other universes) accounts for the fine-tuning of our universe. It doesn’t because a string-inflationary multiverse (the only kind that skeptics can reasonably posit) requires even more fine-tuning than our universe does! Therefore, whether it’s to account for the fine-tuning of our universe or for that of a hypothetical multiverse, an enormously-powerful Fine-Tuner and intelligent Designer and Creator (AKA God) must exist, as I carefully explain in Post #13.

Professor Lennox also made the points that Hawking and Mlodinow’s self-creating-universe statement was NOT a statement of science (but instead of philosophy) and that “any statement, whether made by a scientist or not, should be open to logical analysis … prestige and authority do not compensate for faulty logic.” (God and Stephen Hawking, p. 35)

1-12. An outstanding video

Dr. Meyer discusses evidence for the identity of the intelligent Designer in the following 8-minute video: Who is Nature’s Designer? In this video, he astutely explains exactly WHY all of the evidence demonstrates that a theistic God exists. He includes in his talk evidence from the fine-tuning, from biological information, and from the beginning of the universe. He also explains why space aliens can’t account for the origin of specified biological information. Click or tap on the center of this YouTube block to play the video:

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRtT21zgPbs.

1-13. Reasonable and unreasonable atheists

Therefore, no one can be certain or almost certain that God doesn’t exist, even though some atheists like to pretend that they can be.

These “unreasonable atheists,” as I call them, thus ridicule those who believe in God—but without sufficient warrant or justification. A person can only, justifiably ridicule believers if he/she can be reasonably certain that God doesn’t exist—which he/she can’t be, realistically! (I call them “unreasonable” because pretending that we know more than what we can realistically know is unreasonable. It’s unreasonable to pretend to know, as humans, that God certainly, or almost certainly, does not exist.)

The other type of atheists, that I call “reasonable atheists,” know that they can’t be certain and thus, they believe that God probably doesn’t exist, because they’re simply unaware of the evidence supporting His existence.

Thus, if we see someone claiming to be an atheist, how can we determine which type of atheist he or she is? Ask the following questions: Is this person pretending to be certain, or almost certain, about God’s non-existence? Does he/she ridicule believers? Or is he/she simply believing that God probably doesn’t exist because he/she hasn’t seen any evidence—yet?

2-1. Atheistic perspectives and the Bible’s perspective

(Note: for the purpose of clarity, these sections [2-1 through 2-3] also present a conceptual framework, here as to atheistic viewpoints, contrasted with the Bible’s perspective. Many atheists misconstrue the Bible’s perspective on certain issues.)

When a Christ-follower or Christian comes into an atheist’s life, this may pose a significant problem for the atheist. Why? Depending on the Christian’s level of intelligence and education, the atheist may feel compelled to disprove the reasons that the Christian had for believing in the biblical God! When I met a certain Christian years ago, I was therefore interested in why she came to believe in Jesus. (Later, we’ll delve into this extensively.)

Well-known atheist Thomas Nagel, Professor Emeritus at New York University, once admitted: “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.” (Nagel, The Last Word, p. 130, Oxford University Press, 1997)

I’ve noticed many smart, intelligent, educated Christians as well, such as William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Paul Copan, Craig Keener, Craig Evans, Craig Blomberg, Michael Licona, John Lennox, Timothy and Lydia McGrew, Robert Spitzer, Edward Feser, Frank Turek, Michael G. Strauss, James Sinclair, Sean McDowell, Vince Vitale, Abdu Murray, Amy Orr-Ewing, J. Warner Wallace, Gregory Koukl, and Lee Strobel—among many others.

In fact, William Lane Craig has two earned doctorates; John Lennox has three; both are committed Christians.

Thus, atheists are very sensitive in this area of evaluating the level of intelligence and education of “religious believers,” especially Christians (those who believe in the biblical God). No atheist wants to be “made uneasy” by having around him “religious believers” who are “some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know.” Why is this? Because atheists want atheism to be true!     

2-2. Why want atheism to be true?

Why would atheists, such as Thomas Nagel, want atheism to be true? Atheists typically believe that there’s no life after death—that, when we die, we cease to exist. Wouldn’t it be better to have the possibility of life after death with God? Cf. https://reasonbasedfaith.com/2021/04/11/9-near-death-experiences-part-1-strong-logical-proof-for-life-after-death/.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, many atheists tend to feel more comfortable without a higher moral authority (such as God) over them; then they feel free to do whatever they want. What they don’t realize is that following the will of the biblical God is better for them—in the long run—than following their own will.

In fact, to be precise, God is more trustworthy towards us than we are to ourselves! He does what’s best for us—even more than we do! (We occasionally do things that are hurtful to ourselves and to others, but God, in His highest will, didn’t want those things to happen.) A corollary is that, if something happens that’s not best for us (in the long run), God didn’t do it. (Isaiah 48:17-18; Jeremiah 29:11-13; Luke 6:27-36; John 3:16-17; Romans 12:2, 9-18; Ephesians 4:25-32; 1John 4:16; 5:11-13)

I’ve seen unquestionable examples of this in my own life—so much so that I’m now careful to be reasonably sure that the major decisions I make are in accordance with Scripture, particularly with the New Testament as it’s properly interpreted. (An interpretation of one Scripture verse should not contradict the clear reading of any other verse. Also, Christians are not under the Old Testament civil or ceremonial laws; cf. Acts 15:1-33; Romans 7:4-6.)

2-3. A better system

Some atheists, by the way, also don’t like the system of “those who do more good deeds than bad deeds go to Heaven.” What they don’t realize is that (even though many people assume that this is Bible-based) this is NOT the biblical God’s system! His system is much-more fair, just, and merciful than that!

What’s His system? It’s that those who believe in and trust Him (on the basis of evidence, such as answered prayer, the words of Scripture, the impressive historical, archeological, and prophetic evidence, and even the scientific discovery of the fine-tuning of the universe; see Post #13)—those who believe in and trust Him have their sins forgiven (no matter how many sins there were) and they go to Heaven! (John 3:16-17; 5:24; Romans 3:21-28; 6:23; 10:9-10; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; 1John 5:13) This is MORE than fair and just; it’s merciful and gracious on God’s part!

How can this happen? The people who end up trusting God were (1) seriously willing to consider the possibility that God exists; (2) they sought out and found the impressive evidence for His existence and identity, and then (3) they trusted Him on that basis and on the basis of His promises (e.g. Colossians 2:13; 1John 1:9). The result is that, even if their sins were many, God forgave them.

Note: some Christians will point out that Jesus told us to believe AND to repent of our sins. (Mark 1:14-15) I’ve never had a problem with this. Since it’s the nature of God to want what’s best for us even more than we want it ourselves; of course, I want to turn away from sin or wrongdoing and to please God in my life. (Isaiah 48:17-18; Jeremiah 29:11-13; Luke 6:27-36; John 3:16-17; Romans 12:2, 9-18; Ephesians 4:25-32; 1John 4:16; 5:11-13) It doesn’t make sense to want anything else! (Cf. Luke 6:46-49.) So desiring to turn away from sin and to please God is a result of believing in the biblical God for who He really is.

2-4. Three good books

I recommend three good books in regard to seeking to find evidence for God:

(1) This was written at a layman’s (i.e. high school) level but is packed with good information: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (Crossway Books, 2004). Drs. Geisler and Turek carefully study and describe both the evidence for God’s existence and the evidence for the reliability of the New Testament documents.

(2) This is written at a more-intermediate (college undergraduate) level but can be readily understood by many high school students. It’s also information-packed: The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel (Zondervan, 2016). Strobel, a graduate of Yale Law School and a former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, interviewed thirteen reputable scholars—many of them experts in their field—about the evidence for Jesus. The book records pertinent details of their conversations.

(3) This is super-information-packed, but is written at a more-advanced (college graduate) level; some training in science will also be helpful: Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind behind the Universe by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer (HarperOne, 2021). I especuially recommend Chapters 7, 8, 13, and 16 for the fine-tuning of the universe (Chapter 16, about the fine-tuning of a multiverse, is a game-changer: atheism is no longer feasible because it depends on a multiverse NOT being fine-tuned). Chapters 9, 10, 14, and 15 explain the inadequacy of the neo-Darwinian paradigm to account for many features found in living organisms—contrasted with the Intelligent Design paradigm’s ability to explain all of the data.

By the way, I delve into the fine-tuning of the universe as an evidence for God, and refute the multiverse objection, both in Post #11 (How I Overcame Depression and Suicidal Thoughts by Understanding the Fine-Tuning of the Universe) and in Post #13. I’m writing this paragraph on March 5th, 2023; this is a work in progress. Post #11 is at https://reasonbasedfaith.com/2022/04/30/11-how-i-overcame-depression-and-suicidal-thoughts-by-understanding-the-fine-tuning-of-the-universe/

3-1. Surprising things sometimes happen

Now, I used to be what I would call a reasonable and fair-minded atheist. I had no concept that I would ever be otherwise; I had every intention of remaining an atheist for the rest of my life. As far as I knew, God didn’t exist, so I couldn’t imagine why I would ever change.

However, surprising things sometimes happen! After meeting a certain Christian who I’ll call Patricia, my situation did change. On the one hand, I wasn’t quickly persuaded to her way of thinking (I only believed in the biblical God after months and months of study). But, on the other hand, I simply didn’t know that Christians like her existed!

3-2. Like what?

Like what? Patricia was a Christian who truly believed, as anyone could immediately tell! She had a striking confidence in God as a living reality and in His ability to answer prayer. She seemed to think that, no matter what problem she might face, God would answer prayer and take care of it! She was convinced that God had answered many of her prayers; in fact, it seemed that there was no limit to her confidence in God’s desire to answer prayer! It seemed as if she was living in another dimension of reality, entirely apart from mine.

I was surprised at Patricia’s incredible faith and wondered how she managed to sustain it. I had met other Christians with faith before, but hers exceeded everything I’d ever seen! I never knew it was possible to have that much faith!

Many atheists would say, “She’s deluded!” But, if this was a delusion, I had to admit that there were certain advantages to having it! I had never met anyone who had such a positive attitude towards life! I thought: “If everyone in the world could have this attitude, there would be very little crime because everyone would be trusting God for what they didn’t have. Either they’d expect to get it through hard work and prayer, or they’d realize that they didn’t really need it.”

I stated earlier that an atheist may feel compelled to disprove the reasons that a Christian had for believing in the biblical God. When I met Patricia years ago, I was therefore interested in why she came to believe in Jesus. And I didn’t know if I’d be able to challenge her faith or if she would end up challenging my lack of faith. As I soon discovered, the latter was the case.

3-3. What I wanted to know

I asked Patricia about her faith, and she went so far as to tell me that God Himself could speak to me directly about what I wanted to know! What I wanted to know was how she could have such incredible faith, and, at that time, I didn’t have a clue!

Also, it seemed strange to speak about God in this way—in such personal terms—as if He was right there in the room with us and could hear and answer our prayers! Imaginer that! (Later, I realized that this is precisely what the Bible teaches. Cf. Matthew 7:7-11; 18:19-20; John 15:7-8; Psalm 139:7-10)

3-4. The prayer meeting

This encounter interested me immensely, so I told her that I wanted to learn more . She suggested that I attend the prayer meeting that she attended.

When I did so, I found that there were about three hundred people in attendance, and that a good number of them had the same kind of faith that Patricia had! Of course, this only increased my interest; I began to regard this high faith level as an enigmatic phenomenon that had to have some kind of reason or explanation behind it! But what was it?

3-5. A door in my mind

This high level of faith that many of them possessed seemed to be so positive a feature that I wasn’t disturbed when I realized that the biblical God might actually exist and be responsible for it. Instead, I was actually attracted to this phenomenon!

But I didn’t want to believe just because other people were; I wanted to see strong, compelling evidence; I wanted my beliefs to be founded on reality.

Nevertheless, by meeting Patricia and by attending the prayer meetings, a door in my mind was opened—I became, just a little, open to the possibility that the biblical God might exist! Perhaps—just perhaps—God existed and she had some kind of relationship with Him.

Here’s the key question I asked myself: was it real? Did she actually have a relationship with the biblical God?

3-6. I took the next step

As I mentioned above, I wanted compelling evidence; I wasn’t going to settle for speculations or quoted Scripture verses. (I thought that the Bible might contain a record of ancient historical events and human wisdom, but I didn’t know if any of it was true.)

I thus started my spiritual journey with a moderate amount of skepticism, but with an interest in finding evidence. But where was I going to find it? I didn’t know. Nevertheless, Jesus said, “Seek and you shall find.” (Cf. Matthew 7:7-11) So I took the next step: I sought, starting with a book table.

4-1. How I believed in the biblical God—with the help of Professor Bruce

After the prayer meeting was over, I noticed that they had a book table set up in one corner of the room. On it, I noticed a book with an intriguing title: The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Kingsley Books, latest printing, 2018.) It was written by a British scholar, a fellow named F. F. Bruce (Frederick Fyvie Bruce), formerly a professor at the University of Manchester. He seemed reputable, so I bought the book and started reading it.

Now, as an atheist, I was of course aware that the Bible was written thousands of years ago (about two thousand years ago for the New Testament). Therefore, I had assumed that no one today knew anything about the reliability or historicity of the documents that were collected to form the Bible (39 documents in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament). But Professor Bruce had much to say about this—which surprised me greatly.

4-2. Mark wrote what Peter witnessed

According to Professor Bruce, a Christian named Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who in 130 to 140 AD wrote about how the gospel accounts originated. Papias (circa 70-163 AD) had been “gathering information on this and kindred subjects from Christians of an earlier generation than his own, men who had conversed with the apostles themselves.” (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Bowdon, Kingsley Books, 2018, Chapter 4, p. 22)

Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, quoted Papias in describing the origin of Mark’s Gospel: “Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ …”

Continuimg: “Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he [Peter] mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to include any false statement among them.” (Ibid, Chapter 4, p. 26)

I was greatly surprised to learn that someone did record the circumstances of the writing of Mark’s Gospel, which was, in fact, Peter’s story as recorded by Mark. I now understand this to be similar to books written today that tell someone’s story as it’s recorded by a professional writer or journalist.

4-3. What about the miracles of Jesus?

What about the miracles of Jesus? Can we know that they likely happened? Professor Bruce helped me greatly in this area.

Because many scholars believe that Mark was the earliest Gospel written, Professor Bruce concluded that, “It appears, then, that Mark is, generally speaking, a statement of the gospel story as it was related in the earliest days of the church, and, in view of Papias’ description of Mark as Peter’s interpreter, it is noteworthy that Peter is the chief preacher of the gospel in the early chapters of Acts.” (Ibid, Chapter 4, p. 27, emphasis mine.)

This is important because Mark records many of the miracles of Jesus; these miracles were thus included in “the gospel story as it was related in the earliest days of the church.” Also, since the church was essentially “born” on the Day of Pentecost in Acts Chapter 2, the early chapters of Acts record what happened in “the earliest days of the church.”

This is a logically-consistent scenario because Peter preached the Gospel from the earliest days (Acts 2 through 4), and it’s unlikely that the content of Peter’s message changed; he probably saw the mission of Jesus as being so important—to provide forgivenerss of sins and eternal life—that he wanted to describe it truthfully and accurately. Also, Peter was present as an eyewitness from the time that Jesus began to perform miracles (John 2). Thus, he was easily able to recall the miracles in his preaching, which Mark recorded.

I found all of this to be extremely interesting! Why? Atheists have regarded the miracles of Jesus as legendary accounts that developed over many years in the process of telling and retelling the story of Jesus. Yet, since these miracle accounts (especially in Mark) were part of “the gospel story as it was related in the earliest days of the church,” it is illogical to view the miracle accounts as legendary!

4-4. Why the miracles of Jesus were not legendary

Why? Jesus was crucified on Passover and the church was born on the Day of Pentecost—fifty days (or about seven weeks) after Passover! Dating these accounts from the “earliest days of the church” would mean that the miracles of Jesus were proclaimed in preaching as early as about seven weeks after the crucifixion of Jesus! This would make these miracle accounts too early to be legendary!

Why? It’s difficult for serious legends (about a well-known person) to be accepted (by reasonable individuals) within a few years of a person’s death because too many eyewitnesses are still alive who kmow full well what the person did and didn’t do! They would immediately contradict a fabricated story!

For example, no reasonable individual takes “Elvis sightings” seriously! (They’re either fabricated or they amount to sightings of Elvis impersonators.) Another example: what if I told you that President Ronald Reagan supernaturally healed the sick and performed other miracles? No one would believe it because too many people are still alive who know full well what Ronald Reagan did and didn’t do—forty years ago!

Yet these miracle accounts (especially in Mark) were proclaimed as early as seven weeks after the death of Jesus, and no onne disputed that Jesus was a miracle worker! (Acts 2:14-22) This told me that the miracle accoubrs were more-probably true than false, especiallt after I read the following statements by Professor Bruce.

The Professor responded to claims that the miracle accounts were fabricated in this way: “The earliest preachers of the gospel knew the value of … first-hand testimony, and appealed to it time and again. ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ was their constant and confident assertion. And it can have been by no means so easy as some writers seem to think to invent words and deeds of Jesus in those early years, when so many of his disciples were about, who could remember what had and had not happened.”

Continuing: “And it was not only friendly eyewitnesses that the early preachers had to reckon with; there were others less well disposed who were also conversant with the main facts of the ministry and death of Jesus. The disciples could not afford to risk inaccuracies (not to speak of wilful manipulation of the facts), which would at once be exposed by those who would be only too glad to do so.”

Concluding: “On the contrary, one of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2: 22).” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Chapter 4, pp. 33-34)

4-5. The reliability of Acts

This was seriously comfirmed to me when Professor Bruce described Luke (the writer of the third Gospel and Acts) as a serious historian, in this manner: “Luke, the Gentile physician, inheriting the traditions of Greek historical writing, composes his work [the third Gospel] after diligent research in order that his readers may know the secure basis of the account of Christian origins …” (Ibid, Chapter 4, p. 33)

Professor Bruce wrote this about Luke’s Gospel, but Luke’s diligent research likely was a part of the process of his writing Acts as well.

The Professor added in Chapter 7: “Luke inherited the high traditions of Greek historical writing, and had access to various excellent sources of information about the events with which he dealt, besides being himself present at some of the incidents which he narrated.”

Continuing: “One of the most remarkable tokens of his accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned in his pages. This was by no means such an easy feat in his days as it is in ours, when it is so simple to consult convenient books of reference.” (Ibid, Chapter 7, pp. 58-59) (The Professor wrote this before the Internet was invented!)

I therefore concluded that, because Luke was a serious historian, his writing could be trusted as being (at a minimum) probable history. This was my opinion years ago. Bear in mind that I initially viewed the Bible cautiously and carefully after coming from a place of complete skepticism. I only wanted to believe in what the evidence revealed.

Today I accept the New Testament as virtually-certain history, because I’ve seen more and more evidence supporting not only the historicity of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and of the Book of Acts; but also the historicity of the Gospel of John and of Paul’s epistles. (Cf. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapters 9-12; Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts by Dr. Lydia McGrew, DeWard Publishing, 2017; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FxA9tkURfE&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn08J6XcziBKENY6GDdIP7LI.)

4-6. Confirmation in Acts

And in Acts 2:14-24, Peter tells the crowds that everyone knew that Jesus was a miracle worker, and no one disputed this! On the contrary, within a few minutes, three thousand people beleieved in Jesus as the Christ or Messiah! (Acts 2:36-41) This would not have happened if Peter had blatantly lied about Jesus being a well-known miracle worker.

Therefore, I concluded that it was likely that Jesus performed miracles—and this raised the possibility that the biblical God might be real! How else could Jesus perform genuine miracles (as they are described in the Gospels) unless the biblical God was real?!

4-7. Paul’s testimony

Professor Bruce explained that: “The conversion of Paul has for long been regarded as a weighty evidence for the truth of Christianity. Many have endorsed the conclusion of the eighteenth-century statesman George, Lord Lyttelton, that ‘the conversion and apostleship of St Paul alone, duly considered, was of itself a demonstration sufficient to prove Christianity to be a divine revelation’.” (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?  Chapter 4, p. 56)

Paul’s testimony (in Acts chapters 9, 22, and especially 26), about his turnaround (from being a furious opponent of Christians to becoming a Christian himself), powerfully spoke to me because I could see no logical way to explain it, other than to assume that Jesus must have been a living reality—more powerful than a mere human—after his death on the cross, which is what Paul affirmed. (Acts 26:9-20)

Why? From reading Paul’s testimony (in Acts 9, 22, & 26), I saw that it presented two huge problems from an atheistic point of view:

(1) It’s exceedingly unlikely that Saul, the furious and fierce opponent of Christianity, would have become Paul, the Christian evangelist—unless the resurrected Jesus had supernaturally appeared to him, as he had reported. (Jesus shone brighter than the Sun, Acts 26:13-15.)

This is what impressed me the most: since Paul (or Saul, his name at birth) was at that time such an ardent opponent of Christianity, no purely-natural event could have ever changed him or persuaded him to become a Christian himself! (We see this clearly in Acts 26:9-20.) The only thing that could have changed him was a SUPER-natural event—which is exactly what he reported!

That is, no man merely disguised as Jesus, walking on the road to Damascus, would have ever impressed Saul—yet his life was completely changed by Jesus appearing to him! Cf. Acts 26:9-20.

4-8. The second problem from an atheistic perspective

And (2) Paul was later willing to die for the cause of Jesus (Acts 14:19-21; Acts 21:10-14)—which he would not have been willing to do, unless the resurrected Jesus had supernaturally appeared to him, as he had reported.

That is, Paul knew firsthand whether or not Jesus had indeed supernaturally appeared to him; apparently, Jesus did—for thereafter, Paul was willing to die for the cause of Jesus (Acts 14:19-21; Acts 21:10-14) because he knew that Jesus was a living, supernatural reality (he shone brighter than the Sun, Acts 26:12-15) after his physical death! (Cf. John 19:28-37; Acts 26:9-20.)

As to Acts 14:19-21: stoning was a means of execution in the ancient world: a group of people would throw stones at (normally) someone convicted of a capital crime, until that person died.

In this case (Acts 14:19-21), after being stoned and recovering from it, Paul went right back into the city (Lystra), where the men were who had just stoned him! If Paul hadn’t been willing to die for the cause of Jesus, after being stoned and recovering from it, he would have run away!

4-9. My tentative or probabilistic belief in Jesus

From the evidence for the New Testament and for the miracles of Jesus (from Professor Bruce) and from my friend’s incredible faith and apparent relationship with God, I realized that the biblical God was likely real.

The rhetorical question I asked myself was: How else could Jesus perform genuine miracles (as they apparently were, from the evidence) unless the biblical God was real?! I couldn’t see any realistic alternative but to acknowledge that Jesus did perform miracles—and therefore, the biblical God was probably real.

The evidence for Jesus’s miracles and for Paul’s testimony seemed to be the strongest; this evidence would likely not exist unless God did exist! This certainly seemed to be much-more true than false, but I still wasn’t sure.

So I thought, “I’m not an atheist anymore; I’m not an agnostic, and I’m not a Christian. I’m not anywhere on the map! What do I do?” An agnostic doesn’t know if God exists, but I did have some idea; I thought He probably did. Still, I wasn’t definitely believing in Him and trusting Him to forgive MY sins, so I wasn’t a true Christian—yet.

4-10. My experiment to believe in Jesus

Since I had studied a huge amount of science (biology, chemistry, physics—especially astronomy), I thought of doing an experiment—of “trying God out.” I realized that I could possibly change if I believed in God and then saw what occurred (or didn’t occur) as a result! From reading the New Testament, I knew that God responded to sincere faith. (Mark 11:22-23; Hebrews 11:6)

I wasn’t trying to trick God in any way; I just thought of seeing what would happen (or not happen) if I tried to believe in sincerity.

The question then was, “How do I sincerely believe in Him when I’m not sure, one hundred percent, that He exists?” I knew that He responded to sincere faith, not to fake faith! (Hebrews 11:6) At first, this lack of complete or full faith seemed to block me from trying my experiment.

But then I thought, “Why don’t I simply choose to believe in Him?” I didn’t know if choosing to believe was valid, but it was the only thing I could think of trying at that point, where I seemed to be blocked.

I also distinctly remember thinking, “I’ll choose to believe in Him, and if nothing happens, I can always disbelieve again.” I wasn’t exactly firm in my commitment to Christ! In fact, I wasn’t firm at all—but I did sincerely try to believe, and apparently, for God, that was enough. (Hebrews 11:6)

I therefore made a conscious decision to believe in Him (with all the sincerety I could muster) and to pray to Him. Part of me thought I was lying and part of me thought I was telling the truth—I did somewhat, sort of believe, at least to a degree; I just wasn’t sure.

4-11. The words and the results

I didn’t know if this was valid, but here’s the prayer I prayed to Jesus (John 14:13-14); I remember the words: “Lord Jesus, I believe in you; I want to do your will in my life.”

That was it! Even though I wasn’t sure, I prayed it with as much sincerity as I could manage to feel in my heart.

I didn’t know what to expect next—thunder and lightning? No, that didn’t happen. But what did happen convinced me that the biblical God was real.

What was that? Without expecting to at all, I sensed His Presence! I could describe it, but I won’t; it’s too sacred to put into words, in my opinion. If you’ve sensed God’s Presence, you know it and you know that it was God; you don’t have to have anyone tell you what it was.

Besides, I don’t know if He will respond to everyone in the same way that He did to me, but I believe on the basis of Scripture that He will respond. (Hebrews 11:6) In any case, He gave me exactly what I needed, to reassure me that He was real.

From that point on, I firmly believed in Him and trusted Him to forgive my sins (Colossians 2:13; 1John 1:9) and to give me eternal life. (John 5:24; 1John 5:13) Also from that point on, I’ve been living an incredible adventure—with both trials and answered prayer—an adventure that I never thought possible, but it was and is.

5-1. I later learned much

These sections (2-1 through 2-6) are a summary of what I later learned about the evidence for the Bible and Judeo-Christian theism or belief in the biblical God. I write these sections because atheists and agnostics are often unaware that there is compelling evidence supporting the writings of Luke, the Gospel of John, and Paul’s epistles, particularly the early creed in First Corinthians 15.

As an atheist, I knew, of course, that the Bible clearly stated that God exists and that it even recorded His words and deeds. But since it was an ancient document (or, more precisely, a collection of 66 documents), I mistakenly assumed that no one knew today if any of these documents were reliable.

I later learned from scholars that, because of an abundance of historical and archeological data, we can indeed know that certain parts of the Bible are reliable—especially the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. We’ll see how Luke, an educated physician and the author of both books, was scrupulously-careful in his attention to detail, from research by a classical scholar and historian, Dr. Colin Hemer.

Hemer pinpointed 84 facts, confirmed by history and archeology, in Acts, which demonstrate that Luke was, at a minimum, normally-correct in his statements. He may have been always correct (a person of faith would hold to this on the basis of God’s inspiration or “breathing out” of Scripture [2Timothy 3:16] and His desire for us to know the truth [1Timothy 2:3-4]).

The most that we can establish on the basis of evidence and logic is that, with the 84 facts that have been confirmed, Luke made no mistakes. Therefore, at a bare minimum, he was normally-correct in his statements and may have possibly been always correct. (Luke made many more than 84 statements in his two books. Cf. Geisler & Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, Chapter 10, under “Eyewitness Evidence: Luke”; Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Eisenbrauns, 1990)

5-2. More on Luke

Dr. John McRay, a world-class expert in biblical archeology, had this evaluation: “The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian. … He’s erudite, he’s eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say. In fact, … there have been several instances … in which scholars initially thought Luke was wrong in a particular reference, only to have later discoveries confirm that he was correct in what he wrote.” (Quoted by journalist Lee Strobel in his best-selling book, The Case for Christ, Zondervan, 2017, Chapter 5, p. 164, Kindle Locations 2070-2074)

Oxford Professor and Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White similarly concluded that, “The confirmation of historicity in Acts is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” (Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963, p. 189)

Accordingly, a famed archeologist, Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, stated that, “Luke is a historian of the first rank … This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” (Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915, pp. 85 & 222)

There’s also significant historical support for the Gospels besides Luke’s and for Paul’s epistles (or letters) as well. A person of faith accepts the entire Bible, but as a carefully-critical (yet honestly open) atheist, I needed evidence. (Cf. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapters 9-12; Dr. Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts, DeWard Publishing, 2017.)

5-3. The most powerful evidence

The most powerful evidence that impacted me (in my decision to believe in the biblical God) was the testimony of Paul’s conversion, recorded in Acts THREE TIMES (!) by Luke (in Acts chapters 9, 22, & 26). As a historian, Luke was obviously impressed with Pauil’s testimony—which is understandable, since Jesus dramatically appeared to Paul (Saul at the time) and caused Saul’s complete turnaround! (Cf. Acts 26:9-20.)

(Today I believe that the most powerful evidence for God over-all is the fine-tuning of the universe; cf. Post #13; Dr. Stephen Meyer’s excellent book, Return of the God Hypothesis, HarperOne, 2021, Chapters 7, 8, 13, and especially Chapter 16 on the multiverse.)

What impressed me the most was the fact that, since Paul (or Saul, his name at birth) was at that time such an ardent opponent of Jesus and Christians in general, no purely-natural event could have ever changed him or persuaded him to become a Christian himself! (We see this clearly in Acts 26:9-20.) The only thing that could have changed him was a SUPER-natural event—which is exactly what he reported!

That is, no man merely disguised as Jesus, walking on the road to Damascus, would have ever impressed Saul—yet his life was completely changed by Jesus appearing to him! Cf. Acts 26:9-20.

5-4. Further amplification

We’ll explore his testimony carefully, especially becauce it’s the best example of the cogency of the “who would die for a lie” argument. (Cf. Acts 14:19-21; 21:10-14.) No one would die for what he knows firsthand (and with certainty) to be a lie, but a person may well die for what he knows firsthand (and with certainty) to be the truth.

Muslim terrorists die for what they DON’T know firsthand or with certainty. (They don’t know firsthand that the Koran is true; they just assume that what Muhammad wrote is true.) There is some evidence that Muhammad lived, but no evidence that what he wrote is true. This is a contrast to the Bible, which has abundant prophetic, historical, and archeological support, particularly for the New Testament. Cf. The Case for Christ by journalist Lee Strobel, Zondervan, 2016.

But Paul knew firsthand whether or not Jesus had indeed supernaturally appeared to him; apparently, Jesus did—for thereafter, Paul was willing to die for the cause of Jesus (Acts 14:19-21; 21:10-14) because he knew that Jesus was a living, supernatural reality (he shone brighter than the Sun, Acts 26:12-15) after his physical death! (Cf. John 19:28-37; Acts 26:9-20.)

The basic facts pertaining to Christ’s resurrection are featured in the following animated, 6½-minute video produced by Dr. William Lane Craig’s ministry, Reasonable Faith. Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play the embedded video right here on this page:

If the video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qhQRMhUK1o

5-5. The importance of an early creed

As if all of this weren’t enough, an early church creed (found in 1Corinthians 15:3-7) utterly refutes the legend hypothesis!

What’s the legend hypothesis? Skeptics have suggested that belief in Christ’s resurrection developed over the years as a legend, but that it never really occurred.

However, this early creed refutes and demolishes this legend hypothesis because there was clearly not enough time for a legend to develop!

How do we know? First, I should mention that the creed does NOT possess the traits of Paul’s writing; instead, he obviously quoted it from an earlier source (earlier than when Paul wrote First Corinthians in 55 or 56 AD).

This creed reads as follows in the easily-understood New Living Translation: “I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. ⁴ He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. ⁵ He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. ⁶ After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. ⁷ Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.” (1Corinthians 15:3-7)

In referring to Paul’s quotation of this creed, Dr. William Lane Craig stated that: “…these verses are a highly stylized four-line formula filled with non-Pauline characteristics. This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, just as he says, quoting from an old tradition which he himself received and, in turn, passed on to his converts in Corinth. This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem in AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Peter, Jesus’ chief disciple, and with James, Jesus’ younger brother, according to Paul’s letter to the Galatians.” (Evidence for the Resurrection, at about 7 to 8 minutes into the video. Cf. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by Dr. William Lane Craig, David C. Cook, 2010, Chapter 9, Kindle Locations 3715; 3671-3673)

An excellent article about this creed is What’s the Earliest Evidence for Christianity? (The Answer May Surprise You) by Dr. Justin Bass, who points out that the evidence is clear that Christianity did NOT “develop” as a legend over many years. Virtually every New Testament scholar—regardless of theological persuasion—now believes that (1) Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person (see much more in my third post) and that (2) the creedal statement in 1Corinthians 15:3-7 dates to within about five years of Christ’s crucifixion! (Cf. What’s the Earliest Evidence for Christianity? (The Answer May Surprise You); On Guard, Chapter 9, Kindle Locations 3671-3673.)

Dr. Craig shows specifically why this creed is so valuable. In reference to Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White, Dr. Craig observed that, “According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts.” (On Guard, Chapter 8, Kindle Locations 3084-3094) The reason for this is that, at minimum, for a legend to develop from a real person or event, the eyewitnesses had to have died as well as those who heard the eyewitnesses. Otherwise, too many people would still be alive who would contradict a fabricated story.

It therefore becomes obvious from this early creed that Christians believed in Jesus as the resurrected Son of God from Christianity’s inception. There was virtually no time (a mere five years at most) for a legend about the Resurrection to develop; even two generations is an insufficient time for such legendary development.

5-6. Faith and its implications

By the way, as I’ve stated, belief in atheism is active belief in a conclusion (that God probably doesn’t exist). Similarly, belief in God is active belief in a conclusion (that God does exist; Christians will add “and that He is the biblical God and is trustworthy”).

I didn’t need to qualify belief in God with the adverb “probably” because the evidence for His existence is so very cogent and compelling. For example, by a conservative estimate, the probability that an intelligent Designer and Fine-Tuner (of the universe)—AKA God—doesn’t exist is one chance in a million times a million, times a million, times a million! This is true, in part, because we now know that the multiverse alternative (that of many universes) won’t work.

In other words, we now know that there’s no serious or significant chance that God doesn’t exist! This is a reasonable assessment, according to the compelling evidence we now have. Cf. Post #13; Dr. Stephen Meyer’s excellent book, Return of the God Hypothesis, HarperOne, 2021, Chapters 7, 8, 13, and especially Chapter 16 on “One God or Many Universes?”

Now, the New Testament defines faith as active belief in something or someone (the Greek word for faith is the noun form of the verb for believe; some English words as well have both noun and verb forms). Hence, faith and active belief are identical from a New Testament perspective; cf. Mark 11:22-23. (The New Testament, the second section in most Bibles, is the sourcebook for Christian theism or belief in the Judeo-Christian God. When talking about faith within a Christian context, the New Testament is the sourcebook or highest authority.)

Therefore, we can potentially have faith in God’s existence OR in His non-existence; that is, in atheism! This is what atheists do; they have genuine faith in atheism or in the doctrine that God probably doesn’t exist.

This is a basic premise in the excellent, layman’s-level book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (Crossway Books, 2004). The authors explain that they don’t have enough faith to be atheists because the evidence for God’s non- existence is negligible compared to the strong, compelling evidence for His existence.

(I’m well-aware that atheists point to human suffering as an evidence for their view. However, this is, albeit sadly, consistent with the biblical worldview. Careful Bible readers know that, from a biblical perspective, God’s existence and the existence of human suffering are compatible, though suffering is certainly not in God’s ideal or highest will; suffering is only in His permissive will.)

6-1. A brief look at Christ’s historicity

Some time after I believed I read the informative book by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, (Crossway Books, 2004). From this book and from Dr. William Lane Craig, a well-known academic philosopher and theologian, I learned about the cogent evidence for Jesus Christ as a historical person.

It will likely be beneficial to briefly look at this evidences for the historicity (historical authenticity or actuality) of Jesus. Why? Some skeptics have made the extreme claim that Jesus Christ never existed! However, no one who’s both knowledgeable AND objective will make such claims.

Dr. William Lane Craig, a well-known academic philosopher and theologian (with two earned doctorates), reacted to this idea. On one of his podcasts, someone was quoted, claiming that a growing number of scholars question or argue against Jesus as a historical person. Dr. Craig rebutted this by saying: “My initial response to that claim is that, if the number grew from zero to one, then it might be true to say a growing number of scholars doubts Jesus’ existence. The trouble is, when you read the article, this is one of those things that you just have to roll your eyes at. It hasn’t even increased from zero to one. It is still zero!”

Concluding: “…So the fact of the matter is that there are no scholars who deny that Jesus of Nazareth existed. People like Robert Price and Richard Carrier that are named in the article do not hold professorships at academic institutions or read papers at scholarly societies or publish with academic presses. There aren’t any bona fide scholars that hold to this extreme and, frankly, silly view.” (False Claims in the Popular Press)

6A. More specifically

Specifically: we know—beyond a reasonable doubt—that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person because there are ten attestations from first and second-century non-Christian historical sources that confirm facts about Jesus found in the New Testament Gospels.

Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek list twelve historical facts that can be derived from just these ten sources. These facts can even be arranged as a storyline that’s in full agreement with the Gospel accounts! They are:

1. Jesus lived during the time of Tiberius Caesar.
2. He lived a virtuous life.
3. He was a wonder-worker.
4. He had a brother named James.
5. He was acclaimed to be the Messiah [or Christ].
6. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
7. He was crucified on the eve of the Jewish Passover.
8. Darkness and an earthquake occurred when he died.
9. His disciples believed he rose from the dead.
10. His disciples were willing to die for their belief.
11. Christianity spread rapidly as far as Rome.
12. His disciples denied the Roman gods and worshiped Jesus as God. (Cited from I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapter 9, from the section, “The Gospel according to non-Christians,” p. 223.)

6B. Christ’s non-existence as an unreasonable theory

Now, it’s EXTREMELY improbable that ALL twelve facts—consistent with the New Testament—would be present in non-Christian historical sources (from the first and second centuries) if Jesus of Nazareth had never existed! In fact, it’s silly to imagine such a thing!

In their book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Drs. Geisler and Turek wrote: “In light of these non-Christian references, the theory that Jesus never existed is clearly unreasonable. How could non-Christian writers collectively reveal a storyline congruent with the New Testament if Jesus never existed?” (Chapter 9, from the section, “The Gospel according to non-Christians,” p. 223; see also chapters 10 & 11; Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Book House, 1999, The Sources, pp. 381-384)

These ten sources are:

• Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian
• Tacitus, the Roman historian
• Pliny the Younger, a Roman politician
• Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories
• Thallus, a first-century historian
• Seutonius, a Roman historian
• Lucian, a Greek satirist
• Celsus, a Roman philosopher
• Mara Bar-Serapion, a private citizen who wrote to his son
• And the Jewish Talmud (a collection of writings by the rabbis, covering Jewish law and tradition)..

6C. A pertinent short video by Dr. William Lane Craig

Here’s a 3-minute video on the vital relevance of the New Testament documents, over and above the derivative, extrabiblical documents that were written later. (The Christian church collected only the earliest, most-reliable documents, written in the first century by the early disciples and their associates, to form the New Testament.) This short clip is part of an interview of Dr. Craig by John Ankerberg; the full interview is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUKW2Bm5P2k.

Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play this video, embedded on this page: 

If the video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzP0Kz9eT_U.

6D. About my practice or method in this blog

I often use the following practice or method in this blog because I want to be totally fair and objective—including towards those who are skeptical, who don’t want any unjustified leaps of logic in my presentation. Therefore, throughout most of this blog, I’m not writing from a faith perspective on the New Testament, but rather from an evidential and logical perspective. That is, I’m asking: “What does evidence and logic say about the books of the New Testament?” And, “What does evidence and logic say about God’s existence?”

(By the way, the New Testament—the second major section in non-Catholic Bibles, the third in Catholic Bibles—is a collection of twenty-seven “books” or documents that were written by first-century Christians, some of whom—Matthew, John, and Peter—were eyewitnesses of what Jesus did and taught.)

What’s a “faith perspective” on the New Testament? In part, it’s what’s implied in Scripture—that all of the books of the Bible have been accurately written and preserved for us, because that’s what God, in His love, would want to do for us. He would want us to know His truth. (Cf. Matthew 5:17-18; 26:53-56; Luke 20:37-38; 24:25-27, 44; John 8:31-32; 1Thessalonians 2:13; 2Timothy 3:16; 2Peter 1:20-21)

I agree with this faith perspective, mainly because evidence and logic support it. But here instead, for the benefit of skeptics, I’m writing from a purely-evidential and logical perspective. Surprisingly to some, when evidence and logic are fairly, objectively, and closely examined, we find that they reach conclusions reasonably similar to those of faith.

7. The New Testament books with “extra historicity”

We shall therefore proceed by asking: are there any New Testament books that have what we could call “extra historicity”? Historicity means “historical authenticity” or “historical actuality”–that is, the degree to which a book is (considered by scholars to be) historically authentic or accurate—i.e. the degree to which a book corresponds to real history, to what actually occurred. (Here, as I indicated, I’m not writing from a faith perspective, but from a perspective based on evidence and logic.)

Another way of asking this question is: Do any New Testament books have extra evidence (beyond being a book that was attested to by the church fathers and selected to be part of the New Testament)—extra evidence that supports that book’s historicity? (Of course, the church fathers chose only the earliest and most-reliable documents to be part of the New Testament, but I’m asking: “Is there even more?”)

YES! Three New Testament books, plus a historic and vitally-important creed in First Corinthians 15, have what I’d call “extra historicity” or extra evidence supporting their historical accuracy. Also, the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles have “undesigned coincidences” (that I’ll describe) which enhance their perceived historicity. Specifically:

7A. Here’s the list:

1. The Book of Acts contains 84 facts (verified independently of the Bible) that demonstrate Luke’s scrupulous accuracy as a historian. (Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek: I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapter 10, from the section, “Eyewitness Evidence: Luke”; Colin Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Eisenbrauns, 1990)
2. Thus, by implication, these facts support the historicity of Luke’s Gospel as well. (Since Luke was so accurate in Acts, we can infer that he was likely this accurate in writing his Gospel.)
3. The Gospel of John displays 59 earmarks (distinguishing indications) of being historically accurate. (Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek: I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapter 10, from the section, “Eyewitness Evidence: John”)
4. The creed in First Corinthians 15:3-7 is vitally-important because scholars have determined that it originated within the early church, about two to five years after Christ’s crucifixion! This logically excludes the possibility that belief in Christ’s resurrection developed as a legend. This legend hypothesis directly conflicts with historical data on the amount of time it takes for a legend to develop. (Dr. Michael Licona quoted in Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus, Zondervan, 2007, Challenge #3, Part One, pp. 115-116, Kindle Locations 2054-2062; Dr. William Lane Craig’s Evidence for the Resurrection; Dr. Craig’s On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision, David C. Cook, 2010, Chapter 8, Kindle Locations 3084-3094, Chapter 9, Kindle Locations 3715; 3671-3673; Dr. Justin Bass: What’s the Earliest Evidence for Christianity? (The Answer May Surprise You)
5. The four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles also have extra historicity from 48 “undesigned coincidences.” Each coincidence consists of differently-worded references in two or more New Testament books, about a historical reality (event, person, or circumstance) outside of these books, existing in the first century. Typically, something stated in one New Testament book is more-fully explained in another. A coincidence is NOT merely a common or shared narrative among two or more of the Gospels; it’s not a story that a Gospel writer may have conceivably copied from another Gospel. A coincidence consists of references (in two or more books) to the same exterior reality, but the references are worded differently. They’re “undesigned coincidences” in that the correspondence between them was not pre-planned. Therefore, they do point to a historical reality or actuality of the subject (event, person, or circumstance) that they share, and thus (collectively, with all 48) to the historicity of the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles in the process. (Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts by Dr. Lydia McGrew, DeWard Publishing, 2017; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FxA9tkURfE&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn08J6XcziBKENY6GDdIP7LI.)

---

In this post, we’ll cover Luke as a historian and the Bible’s strongest proof for God (the unique circumstances of Paul’s conversion, especially as described in Acts 26:9-20, which was written by Luke). We’ll cover factors #3 (the earmarks in the Gospel of John), #4 (the early creed which excludes the legend hypothesis), and #5 (undesigned coincidences)—from the above list—in the next post.

Even more factors supporting the historicity of the core story of the New Testament are listed in Post #8, in section 4.

8. Luke as an accurate historian

Historians have known for many years that Luke, the author of his Gospel and of the Book of Acts, was scrupulously-accurate as a historian. Luke himself implied this in the prelude to his Gospel, which reads: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, ² just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, ³ it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; ⁴ so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1-4, NASB) The designation “most excellent” implies that Theophilus was a high official, who perhaps preserved Luke’s Gospel and the Book of Acts for posterity; cf. Acts 1:1-3.

Supporting Luke’s accuracy is the fact that he was well-educated as a physician. (Colossians 4:14) Since a physician is a detective of sorts (in determining the type of ailment and its treatment), Luke was well-suited to become a historian, who is also a detective of sorts (in determining what occurred with all of the accompanying details).

After extensive research, world-famous archeologist Sir William Mitchell Ramsay acknowledged that, “…the book [of Acts] could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement. … Luke is a historian of the first rank. … This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” (Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915, pp. 85 & 222)

Oxford Professor and Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White similarly concluded that, “The confirmation of historicity in Acts is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” (Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963, p. 189)

Dr. John McRay, a world-class expert in biblical archeology, had this evaluation: “The general consensus of both liberal and conservative scholars is that Luke is very accurate as a historian. … He’s erudite, he’s eloquent, his Greek approaches classical quality, he writes as an educated man, and archaeological discoveries are showing over and over again that Luke is accurate in what he has to say. In fact, … there have been several instances … in which scholars initially thought Luke was wrong in a particular reference, only to have later discoveries confirm that he was correct in what he wrote.” (Quoted by journalist Lee Strobel in his best-selling book, The Case for Christ, Zondervan, 2017, Chapter 5, p. 164, Kindle Locations 2070-2074)

8A. Dr. Hemer’s facts

Classical scholar and historian Colin Hemer documented 84 facts in Acts (supported by historical documents, modern shipping practices and navigation routes, and by archeological discoveries) that clearly attest to Luke’s scrupulous accuracy. (Cf. Geisler & Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, Chapter 10, under “Eyewitness Evidence: Luke”; Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Eisenbrauns, 1990)

These facts include the following:

• Correct details of geography, such as the names of ports, boundaries, and landmarks
• Correct details of navigation, such as typical shipping routes or lanes, favorable and adverse winds at various locations, and the best maneuvers for a first-century ship in stormy conditions
• Correct local languages
• Correct local deities
• Correct local slang terms
• Correct political customs, such as legal rights and titles of officials
• And even the correct personal names of some of the local officials in the first century Mediterranean world—names that were confirmed by historical documents and archeological discoveries. Luke’s details are truly impressive!

Some of Dr. Hemer’s 84 facts are as follows:

• Luke correctly named the ports of Seleucia of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey) and Salamis on the island of Cyprus. There is a natural ship-crossing route between them, indicated in Acts 13:4-5.
• Luke correctly named the port of Perga in Pamphylia, along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Paphos, on the island of Cyprus. (Acts 13:13)
• Luke specified the correct language spoken in Lystra—Lycaonian. (Acts 14:11)
• Luke specified the proper description of Philippi, as a leading city of the district of Macedonia and a Roman colony. (Acts 16:12)
• Luke specified the proper association of Thyatira as a center for dyeing fabrics, such as “purple goods.” (Acts 16:14)
• Luke correctly named the locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travelers on foot (in the first century) would commonly spend successive nights on their journey to Thessalonica. (Acts 17:1)
• Luke used the proper term (“politarchs”) for the city rulers at Thessalonica. (Acts 17:6; “politarchs” is in the original Greek of the New Testament; it’s often translated “city authorities” or “magistrates” or “city rulers.”)
• Luke used the correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, a Roman governor or ruler of a province. (Acts 18:12)
• Luke used the correct term bema (in the original Greek), meaning “judgment seat” (sometimes translated “tribunal” or “court”), which overlooks the forum in Corinth. (Acts 18:16-17)
• Luke used the correct title grammateus (in the Greek, rendered “city clerk” or “town clerk”) in Ephesus. (Acts 19:35)
• Luke used the proper term (“proconsuls” or provincial governors) for those holding court in Ephesus. (Acts 19:38)
• Luke specified the name of the fifth procurator or governor of Judea, Porcius Festus—which agrees precisely with the name given by Josephus. (Acts 24:27)
• Luke specified the correct locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring city of Lasea by describing how Paul and his companions arrived there. (Acts 27:1-8)
• Luke specified Appii Forum and Three Inns as correctly placed stopping places on the Appian Way, as Paul and his companions were traveling to Rome. (Acts 28:11-15)

Besides these, Luke uses seventy other correct names, terms, and shipping practices in the Book of Acts! These are on Dr. Hemer’s list and are easily found in the excellent book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapter 10, in the section, “Eyewitness Evidence: Luke.”

8B. Some inferences from the facts

This is WHY Sir William Mitchell Ramsay wrote, as I quoted earlier, “…the book [of Acts] could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement. … Luke is a historian of the first rank. … This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.” (Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915, pp. 85 & 222)

A conscientious historian is therefore prompted to ask the question: “Since Luke was so scrupulously-careful and accurate about many non-critical details (like legal terms, shipping ports, and navigation routes), shouldn’t we expect him to have been as careful and as accurate about the events, speeches, and dialogues in his narrative?” YES! Of course we should expect this—which suggests that the events, speeches, and dialogues in his narrative are likely correct as well—both in Luke’s Gospel and in the Book of Acts.

All of this, of course, therefore implies (from an evidential and logical perspective) that the miracles performed by Jesus and leaders in the early church—as Luke describes—were most-probably real and not imaginary. And THIS implies that the Judeo-Christian God really exists!

8C. The Resurrection and Luke’s connection to Paul

This also implies that, in particular, Christ’s resurrection (described in Luke 24:1-44) was a historical event that realistically supports the Judeo-Christian God’s existence.

That is, since we know that Luke was a scrupulously-accurate historian, therefore; by clear implication, in the Gospel that he wrote, it’s highly probable that we have historical bedrock supporting not only Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person (in addition to the evidences in my third post), but also supporting his resurrection as well. (Cf. Luke 9:22; 18:31-33; 24:30, 36-43; Acts 2:22-31; 13:34-37)

The basic facts pertaining to Christ’s resurrection are featured in the following animated, 6½-minute video produced by Dr. William Lane Craig’s ministry, Reasonable Faith. Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play the embedded video.

If the video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qhQRMhUK1o

By the way, for a time, Luke was a traveling companion of Paul; this is how Luke gathered so much information; he likely interviewed the early disciples as well; any good historian would. (Cf. Acts 21:15-18; scroll down the page to view the entire quote.) Also notice that, from Acts 16:10 to 28:16, Luke wrote “we” or “us” when referring to Paul and his traveling companions; obviously, Luke included himself among them.

9. The “who would die for a lie” argument supporting the Bible’s strongest proof for God

There’s a particular logical argument that some Christians have debated, as to whether or not it should be used. The detractors claim that the argument is not specified or substantiated anywhere; however, I find that this “who would die for a lie” argument is amply specified and substantiated in the Book of Acts.

The argument goes like this: no one is willing to die for what he knows to be a lie from his own firsthand, personal experience. If the resurrection of Jesus had been a lie, the early disciples would have never been willing to die for it—because they knew with certainty (as eyewitnesses) what had actually happened.

The argument concludes: yet since they WERE willing to die for the Gospel, they HAD to have known with certainty (since they were eyewitnesses) that Jesus had indeed risen. Therefore, Jesus unquestionably rose from the dead. (We know that he died on the cross from unimpeachable evidence; cf. https://reasonbasedfaith.com/2020/01/15/2-the-reason-based-faith-approach-the-crucifixion-and-the-resurrection-part-1-of-2/.)

9A. The critical question

Here’s the critical question: are these statements actually made somewhere about an early Christian or Christians—OR are these statements just assumed to be true?

I find that these statements are in the Book of Acts (14:19-21; 21:10-14; 26:9-20), and I believe that this “who would die for a lie” argument is the very strongest logical proof of Christ’s Resurrection!

9B. Acts 21

It’s demonstrated (or overwhelmingly implied such that there’s no realistic doubt) in Acts 14:19-21 that Paul was willing to die for what he believed. This is also clearly stated in Acts 21:10-14. Also, we know from other verses in Acts that Paul had firsthand knowledge (i.e. with certainty) that Jesus had indeed supernaturally appeared to him on the road to Damascus—and firsthand knowledge makes all the difference.

In Acts 21:10-14, when facing future imprisonment—as declared by Agabus in his prophecy—and when other Christians pleaded with him not to go up to Jerusalem, Paul replied: “What are you doing, weeping and breaking my heart? For I am ready not only to be imprisoned but even to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Verse 13) Luke added: “And since he would not be persuaded, we ceased and said, ‘Let the will of the Lord be done.’” (Verse 14) Paul was determined to go up to Jerusalem, even if he died there (for what he believed) as a result. His Christian companions could not dissuade him from going there.

9C. Acts 14

Acts 14:19-21 reads that, in Lystra (stated in verse 8): “…[men] came from Antioch and Iconium, and having persuaded the crowds, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and entered the city, and on the next day he went on with Barnabas to Derbe. When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch,” (English Standard Version)

Stoning was an ancient means of execution—throwing stones at a person until he/she died.

It’s clear that Paul was willing to die for what he believed because, after being stoned, he got right up and re-entered the city (Lystra)—where the men were who had just stoned him! If he weren’t willing to die, he would have run away!

In fact. in verses 20 & 21, we are told that, after going to Derbe with Barnabas, Paul returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch—exactly where some of the men likely were who had stoned him! The “crowds” were from Lystra, and the men who had persuaded them came from Iconium and Antioch. (Acts 14:19)

This means that Paul went to where at least some of the nen likely were (who had stoned him) four times after he had been stoned! He went first to Lystra and was stoned and dragged out of the city. Then he re-entered Lystra, went to Derbe, and in succession, went back to Lystra, and then to Iconium and Antioch. In other words, by this time—allowing for Paul’s trips to Derbe and back to Lystra—the men who had incited the crowds presumably had returned home, back to Iconium and Antioch—where Paul then traveled to next!

Thus, after he had been stoned, he went again into Lystra twice, and then to Iconium and Antioch! Four times he entered a city where some of the men likely were who had previously stoned him! Yes indeed, he was certainly willing to die for what he believed!

9D. Firsthand knowledge makes the difference

Why does firsthand knowledge make all the difference, as I stated earlier? Muslim terrorists who are willing to die don’t know FIRSTHAND (and with certainty) that the Koran is true; they just assume that it’s true. But Paul knew that Jesus had risen firsthand from the supernatural nature of his experience on the road to Damascus. Jesus shone “brighter than the Sun” (Acts 26:13), so it was obvious to Paul (or Saul) that this experience was supernatural.

Since he was a furious opponent of Jesus—Acts 26:9-11—no purely-natural experience would have ever convinced him. A man pretending to be Jesus, and holding a torch in his hand, would not have impressed Saul (Paul). Only a SIPER-natural experience would have ever convinced him! The Lord knew this, which is probably why Paul’s (Saul’s) experience was so dramatically supernatural—including his being blind for three days. (Acts 9:1-22)

9E. Paul knew with certainty and was willing to die for what he believed

Therefore, Paul was obviously in a position to know with certainty whether or not he had a supernatural experience with Jesus—and since he was later willing to die for what he believed (in Acts 14:19-21 & 21:10-14), he DID know this—that he had a supernatural experience—with certainty.

(We can easily infer from Acts 9 that he based his faith in Jesus on his experience on the road to Damascus. That’s where the distinct turnaround occurred in his life. Before this experience, he was a furious opponent of Jesus; afterwards, he became a sincere and totally-dedicated Christian.)

Thus, Paul unquestionably DID have this supernatural experience—no other explanation is logically feasible, not even a hallucination. (Hallucinations are individualized or based on an individual’s psychological state; a group of people never have the same, identical hallucination. Paul’s traveling companions saw the light and heard but did not understand the voice, Acts 9:7; 22:9, ESV.)

We can then reason, as an inference to the best explanation, that this unquestionable experience clearly demonstrated that Jesus was alive after His physical death, and that His claims were therefore true. (This is the best or most-logically-airtight proof of the Resurrection that I know of.)

10. Step by step through the Bible’s strongest logical proof for God

We’ll continue with evidences supporting the historicity of the Gospel of John in section 8, and of other books in the New Testament in sections 9 through 13. Since the Bible’s strongest proof for God is primarily based on Luke’s unquestionable accuracy, we’ll delve into it here.

Christ’s resurrection is powerfully confirmed in Acts by Paul’s (Saul’s) conversion, especially as he described it in Acts 26:9-20. I have even called Paul’s conversion, as described in these verses, “the Bible’s strongest proof for God.” I believe it’s the strongest proof that the Bible offers for (1) God’s existence generally and for (2) the existence of the Judeo-Christian God in particular. (Of course, there are many proofs outside of the Bible for God’s existence as well, such as the fine-tuning of the universe, discussed in Post, #11. Some of these logical arguments and evidences for God are found at https://www.youtube.com/user/drcraigvideos, particularly in the animated videos.)

Note for clarification: prior to the time of the events of Acts 13:9, Paul was called “Saul,” his name at birth. For some reason—perhaps to emphasize that he was a new person as a believing Christian—he changed his name to Paul.

As I implied, Paul’s best recollection of his conversion story (from an evidential perspective) is found in Acts 26:9-20. Paul explained: “I myself was convinced that I ought to do many things in opposing the name of Jesus of Nazareth. ¹⁰ And I did so in Jerusalem. I not only locked up many of the saints [in the first century, the term “saints” referred to normal Christians] in prison after receiving authority from the chief priests, but when they were put to death I cast my vote against them. ¹¹ And I punished them often in all the synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme, and in raging fury against them I persecuted them even to foreign cities.” (English Standard Version)

Why did Paul (or Saul at the time) persecute Christians? He was “in raging fury against” them because he thought that their belief (in Jesus) was hurting Judaism instead of fulfilling it—which it actually was doing. (Cf. Matthew 5:17-18; Isaiah 53:4-12; Daniel 7:13-14; Daniel 9:24-26; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:7-12; Luke 22:19-20; Acts 2:22-32; Romans 1:1-4.) After Paul saw and talked with Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:9-20), he realized that Jesus had fulfilled Judaism, including the Mosaic Law. How do we know this? We see it in the above Scripture verses.

Also, as to Daniel 9:24-26: when one calculates the time of the Messiah’s coming using ancient, 360-day years, March 30 or Nisan 10 in 33 AD is the result—the day of Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-40), according to Professor Harold Hoehner of Dallas Theological Seminary. (Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Zondervan Academic, 2010, Chapter 6, Kindle Locations 1733-1743)

10A. The heart of Paul’s conversion

Continuing with Paul’s account in Acts 26: “¹² In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. ¹³ At midday … I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. ¹⁴ And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ ¹⁵ And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. ¹⁶ But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, ¹⁷ delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you ¹⁸ to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’”

Note: “sanctified” in a first century sense and context had one of two definitions: (1) It meant that people believed in Jesus and had their sins forgiven because of God’s unmerited grace or favor through their faith—NOT because of doing good deeds! (It means this in Acts 26:18, in the passage above.) No one gains eternal life by doing good deeds—this is a common false assumption! (John 5:24; Ephesians 2:8-9; 1John 5:13) Through believing in Jesus, people are given eternal life even if they had committed many sins or acts of wrongdoing, which are thus now forgiven (1John 1:9). (This is accomplished because Jesus paid the price for our sins on the cross. Salvation for us is free, but not cheap. Cf. Romans 3:21-28)

(2) In another sense, “sanctified” meant that a person could overcome sin by trusting in God’s power (active in the believer’s life) and so become gradually more and more able to reject the desire to commit sin or wrongdoing. Thus, “sanctified” also means that we can conquer sin in this life, to greater and greater degrees, by God’s power working in us. (We can’t become perfectly sinless in this life because of First John 1:7-9.)

Paul concluded: “¹⁹ Therefore … I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, ²⁰ but declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentance.” (English Standard Version)

10B. Why Paul’s conversion is the Bible’s strongest proof for God

Why is Paul’s conversion story the Bible’s strongest proof for God? And why is it proof that skeptics cannot—fairly, objectively, and reasonably—rationalize away? Anyone with an agenda is able to rationalize away almost any concept or belief if that person chooses to do so—the human mind is very capable of rationalizing away almost ANY concept or belief! (I have observed this phenomenon on numerous occasions.)

But the real question is: can this be done fairly, objectively, and reasonably—with every evidence being carefully considered; i.e. without any evidence being ignored? (I have observed skeptics ignoring key evidence for God on numerous occasions; they either ignore key evidence or unjustifiably rationalize it away in order to come to their skeptical conclusions.) Whether or not a concept can be rationalized away fairly and reasonably depends upon how much a particular concept is supported by evidence and reason or logic. In the case of Paul’s conversion, the support is great.

Why is the support great from evidence and logic for the supernatural nature of Paul’s conversion? (This evidence, in turn, strongly points to the highly-probable fact that Jesus was a living, supernatural reality after his crucifixion. Paul or Saul was an ardent opponent of Jesus and of Christians in general. The inly way for him to turn around and become a Christian himself was for him to have clearly encountered a supernatural Jesus—which is exactly what he reported!)

But to answer this in detail: firstly, we have already seen that Luke is a scrupulously-accurate historian—and Luke wrote the Book of Acts and therefore the accounts of Paul’s conversion in it (in chapters 9, 22, and 26; I like best the account in Acts 26:9-20 because it contains so many important, key truths). Luke’s authorship implies that these accounts of Paul’s conversion are most-probably reliably historical.

11. The Gospel of John

This extra historicity (and thus, enhanced credibility from an evidential perspective) is also enjoyed by the Gospel of John, because of the 59 earmarks—that is, either historically-confirmed or historically-probable facts compiled by New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, which establish John’s high degree of probable historicity. (Cf. Geisler & Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist, Chapter 10, under “Eyewitness Evidence: John”; Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, IVP Academic, 2011, pp. 69-281; Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Book House, 1999, pp. 388-395)

Professor Blomberg’s 59 facts include:

• Archeology confirms the use of stone water jars in the first century. (John 2:6)
• Archeology confirms the proper location of Jacob’s Well in the town of Sychar, in Samaria. (John 4:4-6)
• Josephus (in his Wars of the Jews, 2.232) confirms that there was significant hostility between Jews and Samaritans in the first century. (John 4:7-9)
• “Come down” accurately describes the topography of western Galilee; there’s a significant elevation drop from Cana to Capernaum. (John 4:46-51)
• “Went up” accurately describes the ascent in elevation as one goes to Jerusalem. (John 5:1 & 11:55)
• Archeology confirms the proper location and description of the five colonnades at the Pool of Bethesda. (John 5:2) Excavations from 1914 to 1938 uncovered the Pool and found it to be just as John described it. Beginning when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD, the Pool was covered over by rubble. It’s thus unlikely that a later non-eyewitness could describe the Pool as accurately as John did. Also, John stated that the Pool is in Jerusalem (John 5:2)—implying that John wrote his Gospel before 70 AD,
• Sudden and severe squalls are common on the Sea of Galilee. (John 6:18)
• Archeology confirms the existence and location of the Pool of Siloam. (John 9:6-7)
• John 11:18 states that the distance from Bethany to Jerusalem is fifteen stadia (in the original Greek) or 9,090 feet or a little less than two miles—which it is.
• The crucifixion of Jesus (John 19:17-30) is attested to by non-Christian sources, such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud. Their attestations, from the first and second centuries, are considered by historians to have much-greater weight than Muhammad’s statement five centuries later, that Jesus was (supposedly) not crucified, All reputable historians therefore agree that he was indeed crucified.
• Josephus confirms (in his Wars of the Jews, 1.97, 2.305, & 7.203) that crucifixion (John 19:17-30) was an execution technique used by the Romans. Moreover, a nail-spiked anklebone (with the large nail still intact) of a crucified man was found in Jerusalem in 1968—direct evidence of this practice.
• John 19:34-35 states about Jesus on the cross, that: “…one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. ³⁵ He who saw it has borne witness—his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth—that you also may believe.” (English Standard Version) Today we know that a crucified person might have a watery fluid gather in the sac around the heart called the pericardium. (Cf. Drs. Edwards, Gabel, and Hosmer’s article: “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ” in the Journal of the American Medical Association 255, #11, March 21, 1986, pp. 1455-1463.) John would not have known of this medical condition, and could not have recorded this phenomenon unless he was an eyewitness or had access to eyewitness testimony. See more on this medical condition in Post #2, section 8, in which Dr. Alexander Metherell stated that what appeared to be blood and water resulted from “a pericardial effusion, as well as … a pleural effusion.” His conclusion? “There was absolutely no doubt that Jesus was dead.” These are among the reasons why no reputable historian denies that Jesus of Nazareth died by Roman crucifixion.

Besides these, John’s Gospel contains forty-seven other historically-confirmed or historically-probable facts! These are on Dr. Blomberg’s list and are easily found in I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, Crossway Books, 2004, Chapter 10, in the section, “Eyewitness Evidence: John.”

11A. More on Christ’s death on the cross

In this context of discussing the evidence for John’s extra historicity, it’s noteworthy, as we saw in the last sub-section, that John’s Gospel demonstrates the virtual historical certainty of Christ’s death on the cross.

It’s also noteworthy that John—who knew Jesus well—was there observing the crucifixion! (John 19:16-30, especially verses 25-27) Therefore, he would most-likely NOT have been fooled if a substitute (a person other than Jesus) had been crucified, as many Muslims believe. Of course, all Christians who hold the Bible in high regard (as abundant evidences indicate) believe that Jesus died on the cross—and that God the Father raised him from the dead. (Acts 2:22-31)

(There are some who call themselves “Christian,” but who don’t hold the Bible in high regard. Nevertheless, this perspective conflicts with numerous evidences, some of which we’re examining in this post. See more in section #4 in Post #8, Dr. Craig’s website: Reasonable Faith, and at Reasons to Believe—especially their “Read” page at https://reasons.org/explore/read.)

Dr. Michael Licona observed that even skeptics believe that Jesus died by crucifixion: “Even an extreme liberal [that is, someone who is theological liberal; i.e. a skeptic] like Crossan says: ‘That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical ever can be.’ Skeptic James Tabor says, ‘I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion, he was truly dead.’” (Licona quoted in Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus, Challenge #3, Part One, p. 113, Kindle Locations 2003-2005)

Four naturalistic explanations of Christ’s resurrection are presented and refuted in the following, Part 2, animated, 6½-minute video again produced by Dr. William Lane Craig’s ministry, Reasonable Faith. Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play this video. (This is Part 2 of the preceding Part 1 video in section 5C.)

If the video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbJ4p6WiZE.

12. The value of an early creed

Dr. Licona went on to explain that an early and extremely-important creed—found in First Corinthians 15:3-7, written by Paul in 55 AD—strongly supports the fact that the early disciples firmly believed in both Jesus’s death and resurrection. In other words, the earliness of this creed—as dated by many scholars—shows that there was insufficient time for a hypothetical legend, about Jesus rising from the dead, to have developed. We know this because the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend develops, according to Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White.

This creed reads as follows in the easily-understood New Living Translation: “I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. ⁴ He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. ⁵ He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. ⁶ After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. ⁷ Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles.” (1Corinthians 15:3-7)

Dr. Licona explained that: “Many scholars believe Paul received this creed from Peter and James while visiting with them in Jerusalem three years after his [Paul’s] conversion. That would be within five years of the crucifixion. … Think about that—it’s really amazing! … As one expert said, ‘This is the sort of data that historians of antiquity drool over.’ Not only is it extremely early, but it was apparently given to Paul by eyewitnesses or others he deemed reliable, which heightens its credibility even more. … it is much too early to be the result of legendary development over time, since it can practically be traced to the original disciples of Jesus. In fact, this creed has been one of the most formidable obstacles to critics who try to shoot down the resurrection. It’s simply gold for a historian.” (Quoted in Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus, Challenge #3, Part One, pp. 115-116, Kindle Locations 2054-2062)

12A. More specifically, why the creed is so valuable

This creed does NOT possess the traits of Paul’s writing; instead, he obviously quoted it from an earlier source (earlier than when Paul wrote First Corinthians in 55 or 56 AD).

In referring to Paul’s quotation of this creed, Dr. William Lane Craig stated that: “…these verses are a highly stylized four-line formula filled with non-Pauline characteristics. This has convinced all scholars that Paul is, just as he says, quoting from an old tradition which he himself received and, in turn, passed on to his converts in Corinth. This tradition probably goes back at least to Paul’s fact-finding visit to Jerusalem in AD 36, when he spent two weeks with Peter, Jesus’ chief disciple, and with James, Jesus’ younger brother, according to Paul’s letter to the Galatians.” (Evidence for the Resurrection, at about 7 to 8 minutes into the video. Cf. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision by Dr. William Lane Craig, David C. Cook, 2010, Chapter 9, Kindle Locations 3715; 3671-3673)

An excellent article about this creed is What’s the Earliest Evidence for Christianity? (The Answer May Surprise You) by Dr. Justin Bass, who points out that the evidence is clear that Christianity did NOT “develop” as a legend over many years. Virtually every New Testament scholar—regardless of theological persuasion—now believes that (1) Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person (see much more in my third post) and that (2) the creedal statement in 1Corinthians 15:3-7 dates to within about five years of Christ’s crucifixion. (Cf. What’s the Earliest Evidence for Christianity? (The Answer May Surprise You); On Guard, Chapter 9, Kindle Locations 3671-3673.)

Dr. Craig shows specifically why this creed is so valuable. In reference to Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White, Dr. Craig observed that, “According to Sherwin-White, the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legend accumulates, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts.” (On Guard, Chapter 8, Kindle Locations 3084-3094) The reason for this is that, at minimum, for a legend to develop from a real person or event, the eyewitnesses had to have died as well as those who heard the eyewitnesses. Otherwise, too many people would still be alive who would contradict a fabricated story.

It therefore becomes obvious from this early creed that Christians believed in Jesus as the resurrected Son of God from Christianity’s inception. There was virtually no time (a mere five years at most) for a legend about the Resurrection to develop; even two generations is an insufficient time for such legendary development.

13. Undesigned coincidences

As I stated earlier, an “undesigned coincidence” consists of differently-worded references in two or more New Testament books, pointing to a historical reality (event, person, or circumstance) outside of these books, existing in the first century. Occasionally, a statement in a Gospel or in Acts is left unexplained in that particular book, but is explained in another New Testament book or sometimes in a historical document written by Josephus, or (in one instance) by a topographical map!

A coincidence is NOT a common or shared narrative among the Gospels; it’s not a story that a Gospel writer may have (hypothetically) copied from another Gospel. A coincidence consists of references (in two or more books) to the same exterior reality, but the references are worded differently. They’re “undesigned coincidences” in that the correspondence between them was not pre-planned.

Therefore, they do point to the historical reality or actuality of the subject (event, person, or circumstance) that they share, and thus, by numerous undesigned coincidences (50 at minimum), they point to and support the historicity (historical authenticity or actuality) of the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles (letters).

Dr. Lydia McGrew stated that, “The occurrence of multiple undesigned coincidences between and among these documents supports the conclusion that the Gospels and Acts are historically reliable and that they come from people close to the facts who were attempting to tell truthfully what they knew.” (Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts by Lydia McGrew, DeWard Publishing, 2017, from the General Introduction, p. 19, Kindle Locations 251-253)

13A. The example with a topographical map

There’s a particular verse in Mark’s Gospel that was criticized by skeptics. Referring to Jesus, Mark 7:31 reads: “Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.” (English Standard Version)

If we glance at a normal map, there appears to be a problem: Sidon is north of Tyre, but the region of the Decapolis is south-east of Tyre! Why travel north to Sidon in order to get to the Decapolis, which is to the south-east? Shouldn’t Jesus have traveled directly south-east to get to the Decapolis? (Skeptics once assumed this; perhaps some still do.)

Actually, not necessarily! If we look at a topographical map of the region, we see that a mountain—Mount Meron—is to the south-east of Tyre! Mount Meron is 3,963 feet in elevation! This is over 3 times as high as the Empire State Building itself, if we don’t count the height of the antenna that’s on the top of the building! (The Empire State Building, in Manhattan, minus the antenna, is 1,250 feet high. Cf. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Empire-State-Building; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FxA9tkURfE&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn08J6XcziBKENY6GDdIP7LI.)

In order to avoid an arduous, mountain-climbing experience, Jesus walked north to Sidon, from which he could take a well-used path alongside of the Jordan River, which provided travelers with fresh water all the way to the Decapolis! It made much-more sense to take this path than to climb over a mountain! (Cf. Ibid.)

Normally, an undesigned coincidence consists of a passage in a New Testament book that presents a puzzle or raises a question plus a second passage from another book in the New Testament that solves the puzzle or answers the question. Thus, a normal undesigned coincidence points to a historical reality, outside of both books, that existed in the first century.

However, with Mark 7:31 and a topographical map, we have a topographical reality that’s indicated or observed in both sources. Mark 7:31 is undesigned in the sense that Mark saw no need to explain why Jesus first went north to Sidon; the reason was obvious to people living in that area, and those readers from other regions would likely not even question it (maps were scarce in the first century).

Yet this undesigned coincidence, along with many others, reinforces the impression and strengthens the proposition that the New Testament is historically and factually reliable.

Dr. Tim McGrew (Lydia’s husband) describes this in the following video; click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play it:

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FxA9tkURfE&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn08J6XcziBKENY6GDdIP7LI.

13B. A second example

13C. A third example

An obvious undesigned coincidence is found between Luke 23:1-4 and John 18:33-38.

Here’s a short (2-minute) video in which Dr. Timothy McGrew (Lydia’s husband) discusses this coincidence. Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play the video:    

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzEhpmTPcv8&list=PLe1tMOs8ARn08J6XcziBKENY6GDdIP7LI&index=6.

14. Attestations from the church fathers

In terms of historicity, New Testament books generally have attestations from the church fathers. For example, early in the second century, Ignatius and Polycarp (between them) quoted as authoritative twenty books of the New Testament—the Gospels, Acts, Romans, First and Second Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Second Thessalonians, First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, First Peter, and First John. (Cf. Professor F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Kingsley Books, 2018, Chapter 2, p. 14, Kindle Locations 338-343)

Of course, this doesn’t mean that they didn’t consider the other seven books of the New Testament to be authoritative as well! It’s just that, for the purpose of addressing the particular topics that they addressed, quotes from these twenty books happened to be foremost in their minds.

Another important attestation was that of Papias (quoted by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History) about Mark, that in his Gospel he wrote down what he heard Peter preach: “Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned …” (Ibid, Chapter 4, p. 26, Kindle Locations 661-662)

Professor Bruce explained that a Christian elder named Papias was the Bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, who in 130 to 140 AD wrote, among other things, about how the Gospel accounts originated. Papias had been “gathering information on this and kindred subjects from Christians of an earlier generation than his own, men who had conversed with the apostles themselves.” (Ibid, Chapter 4, p. 22, Kindle Locations 564-565; cf. p. 26, locations 659-665)

15. Doctrinal consistency and the identity of Jesus

In addition to these attestations, I would point to two factors: (1) first, the obvious “extra historicity” supporting the Book of Acts, the Gospel of Luke (because Luke is so scrupulously-accurate in Acts), the Gospel of John, and the early creed in First Corinthians. From a scholarly perspective, these are books unquestionably rooted in the history of the first century. (From the 48 undesigned coincidences in the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s epistles, we could additionally argue that, at minimum, these books were well-connected to first-century history.)

And (2) secondly, I’d point to the doctrinal consistency of these books and of the entire New Testament—indicating that all New Testament books came from the first century; i.e. from a time when doctrinal considerations were unaffected by issues that blossomed in the second century and beyond—issues such as Gnosticism, which is silly nonsense that few people today would believe and that the Bible nowhere supports.

An example of this doctrinal consistency is that the divinity of Christ is exhibited (of course) in the Gospel of John (1:1-3 & 14-18; 8:58; 10:27-30; 20:19-29), and also in Paul’s epistles (Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 2:9), in Hebrews (1:1-12 & Psalm 102:24-27), in Revelation (1:8 & 21:6-7 & 22:12-16 & 1:17-18 & 2:8 + Isaiah 44:6 & 46:9 & 48:12-13), in Mark (2:5-12), and in both Luke 13:34 and Matthew 23:37 as well. In these last two verses, Jesus speaks about Jerusalem in a way that clearly places him in the position and perspective of the God of Israel. (Cf. Isaiah 46:9; compare Luke 13:34 with Psalm 36:7 & 91:4 and with Isaiah 48:17-18.)

Here’s a related video on: Who did Jesus think he was? This animated, 6½-minute video was also produced by Dr. William Lane Craig’s ministry, Reasonable Faith. Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play the embedded video:

If the video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSQDov6NNp0.

16. Following my blog

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, within minutes after a new post is online.

---

---

17. What is a personal relationship with God?

One might ask, “What’s a personal relationship with God?” John, one of Christ’s earliest disciples, wrote in First John 1:1-3: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— ² and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— ³ what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.” (New American Standard Bible)

A personal relationship with God consists of fellowship—of our praying to God and of our listening to hear Him speak to us, particularly out of His Word or revealed message; i.e. the Bible. I don’t mean to sound spooky here, but there are times, when I read the Bible, that I can dwell in His Presence and ask Him questions—and be guided to precisely the right answers.

17A. An outstanding testimony from a former atheist

It’s a bit like the critical point of change in this story, in the following video, which is an outstanding testimony from a former atheist. This is one of the best testimonies I’ve ever heard! Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play the video:

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXWR5UL9BKo.

17B. How to begin a personal relationship with God 

One might ask, “How do I begin a personal relationship with God?” Again, according to the prophet Jeremiah, God said: “Call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things that you have not known.” (Jeremiah 33:3, ESV) Call to Him—and I recommend using the name of Jesus, as the woman did in the above video. In the Gospel of John, Jesus said: “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. ¹⁴ If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.” (John 14:13-14, New American Standard Bible) Of course, such passages must be harmonized with First John 5:14-15.

What will also assist you is reading the Bible; I recommend starting in the New Testament with the Gospel of John – that’s where I started and where many others start as well. The Gospel of John makes the Gospel message perfectly understandable. Bible translations I recommend are: the King James Version (KJV), unless you have difficulty with the old English vocabulary and syntax – in which case, I recommend the New King James Version (NKJV) or the English Standard Version (ESV) or the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Those who are eager to learn may want to buy several of these translations and compare them when you read. (That’s what I’ve done for years.) Also, my favorite Bible commentary—by far—is the Believer’s Bible Commentary by theologian William MacDonald (Thomas Nelson, 2016).

18. Other videos pointing to God’s existence 

The following short, animated video displays some of the convincing evidence that Jesus rose from the dead; it includes quotes from reputable scholars. It was made in association with Reasonable Faith, the organization founded by Dr. William Lane Craig. Click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play this video right on this page:

If this video doesn’t appear in your browser, the link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qhQRMhUK1o.

A second short, animated video (Part 2 of the above) is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SbJ4p6WiZE.

Here’s an extremely-informative video of Dr. William Lane Craig, sharing about the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fine-Tuning Argument, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMn0RvVq4oY&t=148s

This “Paradigm Project” video shows scholars and scientists explaining, step by step, the Intelligent Design paradigm. What is it and what does it mean? It’s at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxaF36arB4.

Dr. William Lane Craig explains on this podcast why skeptics are mistaken about the Christian Faith supposedly being blind faith; instead, it’s the exact opposite; the Christian Faith is normally BASED on evidence and reason! (“The Nature of Faith” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwsp8s7Odzo) Cf. Exodus 4:1-5; 14:26-31; 1Kings 18:36-39; Psalm 19:1-2; Mark 2:5-12; John 2:1-11, 23; 10:37-38; 14:11; 20:24-31; Acts 1:3; 2:22-41; 3:11—4:4; 8:4-13, 26-38; 9:1-22, 32-42; 14:15-17; 17:1-4, 10-12, 22-34; 22:1-16; 26:9-20; Romans 1:19-20; 1Peter 3:15.

Eric Metaxas, New York Times bestselling author, fully agrees with the Intelligent Design paradigm. Watch him explain his new book, Is Atheism Dead? It’s in this video: “God’s Not Dead, but with New Scientific Findings, Atheism Sure Is” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyjSULrMPzI.

The best reply to an atheist, evolutionist, and agnostic by Ravi Zacharias, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDn9_7VmmRc  

---

“One God or Many Universes? Stephen Meyer Explores How Fine-Tuning Points to Intelligent Design” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwa6LfZlGN8.  

The miracle of the Human Heart by biologist Michael Denton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52JfcJvP-Sk

Stephen Meyer answers questions about the Judeo-Christian origins of science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBwRC8qJSoI

Adrienne Johnson: Why I an no longer an atheist, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnOTuHgXJfs

“Is Science Turning Back to God?” by Dr. Stephen Meyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5iVRIWtIcA

Darwin’s Nightmare (Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Ep. 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3B8KkSZp_E

Why the Cambrian Explosion contradicts neo-Darwinism:

(1) The partially-animated documentary: Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record  

(2) Darwin’s Nightmare: Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Episode 1

(3) Still NO fossils? Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Episode 2

Science Uprising video: Dr. James Tour: Why the Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

The Unique Origins of Humanity in the Fossil Record by Dr. Casey Luskin

Why God allows suffering – Dr. Hugh Ross, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEJboUJVk4Y

Science and Christianity – a discussion with astrophysicist Hugh Ross, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J1LcaRKxnw

“Debunking the Hallucination Hypothesis: Leading Doctors Speak on Jesus” with Dr. Sean McDowell, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT12FnjJLKI

Is it possible to know God? An animated video by Dr. William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjbeqL_qBl8

---

Eric Metaxas explains in detail his book, Is Atheism Dead? It’s in this video: “God’s Not Dead, but with New Scientific Findings, Atheism Sure Is” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyjSULrMPzI.

Drs. Sean MacDowell & Titus Kennedy on the archeological evidence for Jesus at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXN6E3MeMbk 

19. More recommended videos

Here’s possibly the most-positive and encouraging video I’ve ever seen about God’s existence! It’s by New York Times bestselling author, Eric Metaxas, as he speaks at Calvary Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo7jjVajISI.

This “Paradigm Project” video shows scholars and scientists explaining, step by step, the Intelligent Design paradigm. What is it and what does it mean? It’s at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxaF36arB4.

A Jewish woman has a horse-riding accident; her near-death encounter with Jesus leaves her still Jewish, but believing in her Messiah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gTCinynjAQ

New York Times bestselling author Eric Metaxas in a recent, hour-and-13-minute video on “Is Atheism Dead?” At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLxdWn7ntBI.

Eric Metaxas explains The overwhelming evidence of God, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybn–uIbOA0.

Dr. William Lane Craig answers the question: Does the problem of evil make God unlikely? At https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBo4GH8YAYs.

Dr. Stephen Meyer gives an introductory talk on the theory of intelligent design: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu93Mw4mtec

Dr. Stephen Meyer explains evidences and reasons for intelligent design: “APOLOGIA: Forum with Dr. Stephen Meyer” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HnBe1EF9aw 

Brian Miller explains the surprising relevance of engineering in biology, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9i2vFEa6rE.

Dr. Stephen Meyer explains the Judeo-Christian origins of modern science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss-kzyXeqdQ

The (Un)Reasonableness of Mathematics by Dr. William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmKzTLjddmQ

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Part One: Scientific: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0

The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Part Two: Philosophical: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybNvc6mxMo

No, the Kalam Argument has not been “debunked,” Part One: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyu2KsLWreA

No, the Kalam Argument has not been “debunked,” Part Two: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49eCU_DqDjo

No, proponents of the Kalam Argument aren’t guilty of special pleading (Part Three): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnLfmz2qNqM

The personal testimony of former drug addict Michelle Steele: how Jesus rescued her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ7IUofuLRg

• Why should I believe God exists? At Clemson University, by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Remembering the hope of heaven – John Burke on Focus on the Family
• Image Heaven / John Burke on 100 Huntley Street
• Animated video from Reasonable Faith: Who did Jesus think He was?
• Animated video from Reasonable Faith: Did Jesus rise from the dead? — Part one: the facts
• Animated video from Reasonable Faith: Did Jesus rise from the dead? — Part two: the explanation
• Did the Resurrection really happen? by Dr. William Lane Craig
• 4 historical facts that prove that Jesus really did rise from the dead by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. William Lane Craig
• Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Yale 2014 by Dr. William Lane Craig

Here’s an extremely-informative video of Dr. William Lane Craig, sharing about the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Fine-Tuning Argument, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMn0RvVq4oY&t=148s

This “Paradigm Project” video shows scholars and scientists explaining, step by step, the Intelligent Design paradigm. What is it and what does it mean? It’s at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jxaF36arB4.

Dr. William Lane Craig explains on this podcast why skeptics are mistaken about the Christian Faith supposedly being blind faith; instead, it’s the exact opposite; the Christian Faith is normally BASED on evidence and reason! (“The Nature of Faith” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zwsp8s7Odzo) Cf. Exodus 4:1-5; 14:26-31; 1Kings 18:36-39; Psalm 19:1-2; Mark 2:5-12; John 2:1-11, 23; 10:37-38; 14:11; 20:24-31; Acts 1:3; 2:22-41; 3:11—4:4; 8:4-13, 26-38; 9:1-22, 32-42; 14:15-17; 17:1-4, 10-12, 22-34; 22:1-16; 26:9-20; Romans 1:19-20; 1Peter 3:15.

Eric Metaxas, New York Times bestselling author, fully agrees with the Intelligent Design paradigm. Watch him explain his new book, Is Atheism Dead? It’s in this video: “God’s Not Dead, but with New Scientific Findings, Atheism Sure Is” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyjSULrMPzI.

The best reply to an atheist, evolutionist, and agnostic by Ravi Zacharias, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDn9_7VmmRc  

---

“One God or Many Universes? Stephen Meyer Explores How Fine-Tuning Points to Intelligent Design” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwa6LfZlGN8)  

Adrienne Johnson: Why I an no longer an atheist, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnOTuHgXJfs

“Is Science Turning Back to God?” by Dr. Stephen Meyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5iVRIWtIcA

Darwin’s Nightmare (Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Ep. 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3B8KkSZp_E

Why the Cambrian Explosion contradicts neo-Darwinism:

(1) The partially-animated documentary: Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record  

(2) Darwin’s Nightmare: Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Episode 1

(3) Still NO fossils? Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Episode 2

Science Uprising video: Dr. James Tour: Why the Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

The Unique Origins of Humanity in the Fossil Record by Dr. Casey Luskin

Why God allows suffering – Dr. Hugh Ross, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEJboUJVk4Y

Science and Christianity – a discussion with astrophysicist Hugh Ross, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J1LcaRKxnw

“Debunking the Hallucination Hypothesis: Leading Doctors Speak on Jesus” with Dr. Sean McDowell, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT12FnjJLKI

Is it possible to know God? An animated video by Dr. William Lane Craig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjbeqL_qBl8

---

Eric Metaxas explains in detail his book, Is Atheism Dead? It’s in this video: “God’s Not Dead, but with New Scientific Findings, Atheism Sure Is” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyjSULrMPzI.

Drs. Sean MacDowell & Titus Kennedy on the archeological evidence for Jesus at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXN6E3MeMbk 

The miracle of the Human Heart by biologist Michael Denton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52JfcJvP-Sk

19A. Videos regarding Dr. Meyer’s book and the evidence for God:

Dr. Stephen Meyer explains evidences and reasons for intelligent design: “APOLOGIA: Forum with Dr. Stephen Meyer” at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HnBe1EF9aw 

The Fine-Tuning of the Universe, an animated video from Reasonable Faith, the organization founded by Dr. William Lane Craig. (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/)

Impossible Universe: The Reality of Cosmic Fine-Tuningby Dr. Craig

An outstanding short video: Who is Nature’s Designer? By Dr. Stephen Meyer

An outstanding one-hour video: The Return of the God Hypothesis with Dr. Stephen Meyer, in which he shares evidence supporting theism and excluding deism and pantheism. This video is impressively-cogent and information-packed! It’s also where Dr. Meyer announced that a Nobel Laureate (Professor Brian Josephson) has endorsed Return of the God Hypothesis.

How does the fine-tuning of the universe point to an intelligent designer? By Dr. Craig on the John Ankerberg Show

God’s Fine-Tuning of the Universe – Dr. Hugh Ross on the John Ankerberg Show

Stephen Meyer answers questions about the Judeo-Christian origins of science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBwRC8qJSoI

20. Recommended books

20A. A good book describing evidence for God

As to books focusing on evidence for God, I recommend Is Atheism Dead? By New York Times bestselling author, Eric Metaxas. (Salem Books, 2021)

Metaxas clearly recognizes the fact that, because of the recent increase in scientific evidences for God’s existence and in archeological evidences supporting the Bible’s text, more people are turning from atheism to theism (i.e. minimally, belief in the Creator God who intervenes in the universe He has made).

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has commented that, “With great oratorical skill and irrepressible humor, Metaxas engages lay readers with the story of how recent discoveries have made atheism scientifically, historically, and philosophically untenable.” (Is Atheism Dead? P. 1, Kindle Locations 8-10)

Metaxas makes a powerful statement at the very beginning of the book: “We are living in unprecedentedly exciting times. But most of us don’t know it yet. That’s essentially the point of this book, to share the news that what many people have dreamt of—and others have believed could never happen—has happened, or at any rate is happening this very minute and has been happening for some time. By this I mean the emergence of inescapably compelling evidence for God’s existence.” (Is Atheism Dead? Introduction, p. 3, Kindle Locations 64-67)

Topics in this book include the scientific evidence that points to God’s existence from the Big Bang, the fine-tuned Earth, the fine-tuned universe. planetary fine-tuning, and the origin of life; corroborating discoveries from biblical archeology, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the New Testament manuscripts; three atheists who found God; the boundaries of science; the impossible bleakness of materialistic atheism; the founding myth of atheism; Christianity begat science, and great scientists who were also devout Christians.

Here’s a potent 5-minute video of Metaxas, asserting that new scientific evidence affirms the existence of a Creator God. He emphasizes this in the process of describing his book, Is Atheism Dead? This video is embedded in this page: click or tap on the center of the following YouTube block to play it: 

---

In this video, Metaxas affirmed that, “We have something happening right now, that’s been happening, that is as big news as it gets! … The evidence for God from science … now, while we’re living, the evidence literally from science for the existence of a Creator God … the evidence is so overwhelming, as I argue in the book, as to be open and shut. In other words, if you want to be an agnostic today, that’s fine … we can have a conversation. But if you want to be intellectually honest, today I don’t think you can say ‘There’s no God; I believe there’s no God.’ Science … has made that impossible!” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIcjJGM6Gms)

20B. In addition

I also recommend reading:

• The lay-friendly (easy to read) book, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Drs. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek (Crossway Books, 2004). This makes the scientific evidence for God easily understandable; it also has very cogent perspectives on why the New Testament is historically reliable. Included in Chapter 10 is a full list of Dr. Hemer’s 84 facts in Acts (which demonstrate Luke’s scrupulous accuracy) and a full list of the Gospel of John’s 59 earmarks—that is, either historically-confirmed or historically-probable facts—compiled by New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg, which establish John’s high degree of probable historicity.

• The Case for Christ: Solving the Biggest Mystery of All Time by journalist, former atheist, and New York Times Bestselling Author, Lee Strobel (Zondervan, 2017). This is also available in a previous edition: The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus (Zondervan, 2016). The author, Lee Strobel, interviews top scholars in order to ascertain the historical authenticity and credibility of the New Testament and of Jesus himself.

• Dr. William Lane Craig’s On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (David C. Cook, 2010), and the student edition: On Guard for Students: A Thinker’s Guide to the Christian Faith (David C. Cook, 2015). Both of these versions present philosophical (i.e. validly logical), scientific, and historical reasons for Judeo-Christian theism—reasons that are recognized as cogent by reputable scholars, of whom Dr. Craig is one. I was particularly impressed with the depth and cogency of his explanations of why atheism offers minimal meaning and value for our lives now, and no real hope for the future—while Judeo-Christian theism, by contrast, offers vital and vibrant meaning and value for our lives now, and tremendous hope for the future!

• The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith, edited by William Dembski, Casey Luskin, and Joseph Holden (Harvest House Publishers, 2021). This book is an anthology, featuring contributions by thirty-one scholars and scientists, many of whom are experts in their field. They promote the perspective that there is no real conflict between science and faith—only the appearance of a conflict—and that there is scientific evidence that supports theistic and Judeo-Christian beliefs. I’d say that the evidences, from various scholarly and scientific disciplines, are overwhelming in their cumulative effect.