A young man looks down at an open Bible in his hands

Can I Trust and Understand the Bible?

  • By: Mike McGarry
  • Sep 12, 2023

“The Bible was put together hundreds of years after Jesus lived.”



“What good can a two-thousand-year-old book be for today’s world?”

“That’s just your interpretation.”

These are statements you’ve likely heard or asked. I have noticed that when students fall away from faith it often begins when they stop viewing the Bible as the inspired and authoritative Word of God. Some merely look for ways to marginalize Scripture in order to live in sin. But others genuinely wrestle with the relevance and reliability of a two-thousand-year-old book.

If the Bible is just another book, then it can give advice but not make demands. The historical trustworthiness of Scripture matters because the Bible isn’t an instruction manual for life, but God’s revelation of himself through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Christians who lose confidence in the authority and trustworthiness of Scripture soon find themselves floundering in faith. Let’s look at some reasons why you can follow Jesus with confidence in the Word of God.

Archaeology Affirms the Bible

Each book of the Bible was written with ink on a scroll and carefully recopied over the centuries. Many ancient copies have since been lost or destroyed, but what we’ve unearthed gives us an accurate biblical text in the original languages. When historians compare the vast number of ancient copies against other ancient texts that are highly regarded for their insight into the ancient world, and consider how few years separate those manuscripts from when the original New Testament letters were written, the historical reliability of the Bible is simply unparalleled.1 It is unreasonable to expect that we must still have the original biblical documents in order to affirm the authenticity of the Bible. No one would make a similar demand of any other ancient document.

When compared against other ancient manuscripts…scholars’ ability to recreate the Bible’s original manuscript is unmatched.

When compared against other ancient manuscripts, and even against the works of William Shakespeare, scholars’ ability to recreate the Bible’s original manuscript is unmatched. This is not a matter of opinion, but is objectively true. Plato’s Four Dialogues, which is read in many introductory philosophy courses, has around 200 ancient copies that scholars use to piece together the original book. But when it comes to the New Testament, there are more than 5,800 copies, some of which are dated within a hundred years of the original writings. The reliability of the Old Testament was secured by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946, which showed that the Hebrew text has remained the same over the last two thousand years.2 Even atheistic archaeologists must admit the Old and New Testaments are historically reliable.

When scholars compare these ancient biblical manuscripts, the differences between texts are almost always about grammar or spellings, and none of the remaining differences affect any central doctrines.3 This is objective, historic truth—and yet many students hear that the Bible can’t be trusted. Addressing this head-on through archaeology and textual criticism assures us that the Bible we hold in our hands is a faithful translation of the original text.

How the Bible Was Put Together

Sometimes people share conspiracy theories about how some books were included in the Bible while others were left out. But the Bible was not compiled by a select group of elite influencers. Leaders in the early church did not grant authority to certain books to become the Word of God; they affirmed which ones already carried authority as being “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16 NIV). The identified books were then included in the canon of the New Testament.4

…the Bible was not compiled by a select group of elite influencers.

During the time of the early church, a “canon” was a rod of papyrus used as a ruler to make accurate and authoritative measurements. This terminology eventually found its way into the church’s method for determining whether or not a book “measured up” and belonged within the biblical canon of Holy Scripture. The canon of the Old Testament was already established. Some new books, like the Gospel of Thomas and other Gnostic gospels, simply did not measure up to three criteria:

1. Biblical: God’s Word is consistent.

The New Testament must not contradict the Old Testament, because God does not contradict himself. The Old and New Testaments tell one consistent story of God’s plan to rescue his children and reestablish his kingdom. The Gnostic gospels were dismissed from the canon because their teachings simply did not measure up with biblical teaching, especially on creation and salvation.

2. Apostolic: Firsthand authorship.

There was early agreement that the teachings of the apostles and other firsthand witnesses of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection would be prioritized. For instance, Matthew was an apostle who was present for most of what he reported in his gospel. Paul had a direct encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus and received an apostolic commission. Luke got his information from firsthand sources who walked with Jesus. All the books of the New Testament were written within the lifetime of the apostles and carry the mark of apostolic teaching.

3. Catholic: Widespread readership.

As books were considered for the canon, churches throughout the Roman Empire (and beyond) were already reading the biblical books as part of their gathered worship. This happened because of the first two criteria: Christians made copies of the Gospels and of letters that reflected gospel authority and carried these to other churches for their benefit. At the time the canon was formalized, Gospels and epistles that were only read in certain areas came up short because they demonstrated too much particularity and too little catholic (universal) appeal. The books of the New Testament were already largely accepted as authoritative by every church throughout the Christian world.

Practical Implications of the Bible’s Reliability

  • The Bible’s reliability gives us confidence that the Bible we read is what the apostles actually wrote. It is common to hear that the Bible wasn’t created until centuries after Jesus lived and that certain books were left out for political purposes. But archaeology demonstrates that’s not true. Knowing how the Bible was actually compiled affirms our confidence in the reliability of Scripture.
  • It anchors Christians within a diverse family of faith. Christianity is not a trendy religion that will be outdated by the time you graduate from high school. It is a two thousand-year-old religion that has stood the test of time, weathered intense persecutions, and united people from every language and culture. When we read the Bible, we can be assured that God’s truth is both timeless and relevant to transform our own lives today.
  • Jesus really lived, died, and rose from the grave. Christianity is not just a good idea; it is a historically driven religion. The archaeological reliability of the Bible bolsters our faith in the truth of the gospel. This is especially important when our faith begins to waver. That’s when we need to be anchored in the truth that the Bible is not merely spiritually true but also historically true.

Digging Deeper

Use these questions for your own personal reflection and journaling, or for discussion with others.

  • What are some reasons people question the trustworthiness of the Bible?
  • What did you learn about biblical archaeology? How does this affect your view of the Bible’s reliability?
  • How would you summarize the way the early Church discerned which books to include in the Bible?
  • What do we lose when we lose the trustworthiness of Scripture? How would that affect the way you think about God, yourself, and life?

  1. Greg Gilbert, Why Trust the Bible? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015). This is a short book and an easy first step to further study of the historical reliability of the Bible.

  2. Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World, rev. ed. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2017), 52.

  3. McDowell and McDowell, Evidence, 52.

  4. F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 2nd. ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2018). Section Four especially deals with the issues of how the Early Church identified books to be included in the Bible. Evidence That Demands a Verdict also has multiple helpful chapters about the formation of the Bible, its trustworthiness, and other “gnostic gospels” that are not considered biblical.

 

Excerpted from Discover: Questioning Your Way to Faith © 2023 by Mike McGarry. Used with permission of New Growth Press. May not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Subscribe

Stay Updated on Key Issues!

  • In-depth analysis and insights
  • Resource recommendations
  • Practical training opportunities

Comments

  • Gary
    Oct 18th, 2025
    Why do Protestants (i.e., evangelicals) place so much faith in the leaders of the early Church regarding the formation of the canon of the New Testament? Why believe that the Church leaders in the first century were infallible but reject the infallibility of the Church’s leaders (the Magisterium) in the succeeding twenty plus centuries? And why believe that the early Church leadership was infallible in their selection of the canon of the New Testament but reject the same early Church leaders’ selection of the canon of the Old Testament? Yes, you read that right. Protestants reject the Old Testament canon selected by the same early Church leaders who selected the New Testament canon! Most early Church Fathers including Augustine considered the seven deuterocanonical texts (the Apocrypha) to be the inspired Word of God. The Council of Hippo declared these texts the inspired Word of God in 393 CE, less than 70 years after the Council of Nicea. Sola Scriptura only works if you are certain the canon is divinely inspired. Why should we trust the early Church regarding the NT canon when we reject them regarding the OT canon?
    • Scott
      Oct 20th, 2025
      I don't think it's accurate to say that our faith is in the leaders of the early church. Our faith is in God to reveal and preserve his inspired word. The role of God's people of faith (i.e. the people of Israel and the church) was to recognize and receive his word. Granted, this didn't occur in a straight line nor all at once. The question then isn't "which church leaders do we decide to trust or not trust?" It's "How did they identify inspired Scripture vs. uninspired writings?" As for the OT, the early Christians (who were all Jews) seemed to already have an identified canon. Josephus identifies the Hebrew canon as limited to the 22 received books. (The typical Jewish count was 24, but some included Ruth as an appendix to Judges, and Lamentations to Jeremiah in order to make the number 22, equal to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet). No mention of apocryphal texts as Scripture. Philo similarly talks about the inspired books received by the Jews, but shows no sign of including apocryphal works. (see Bruce, Canon, p. 46). Rabbinic writing in the Talmud from the 2nd - 3rd century also attest that the prophetic voice to Israel ceased after Malachi (South 48b). It's also worth pointing out that none of the NT writers quoted any apocryphal works as Scripture, while the majority of the books in the Jewish canon are quoted. Of course there was dispute among later church theologians. But I question your suggestion of "Most early church fathers". You only mention Augustine. This isn't to say that the apocryphal books have no value. They certainly provide significant insight 2nd Temple Jewish thought and belief. I doubt this will settle the dispute, but I think your assessment of Protestants viewing some church leaders "infallible" while ignoring others doesn't represent what's going on.
  • Gary
    Oct 21st, 2025
    Hi Scott. Thank you for responding to my question. The deuterocanonical books had been included in the biblical canon since the Third Council of Carthage (397 AD). If you accept the conclusions of the Council of Nicea in 325 CE on what grounds do you reject the conclusions of the Council of Carthage just circa 75 years later in the same century? Here is a list of early Church Fathers, who along with Augustine, believed the canonical texts were inspired Scripture: Prominent early Church Fathers Clement of Rome: Supported the deuterocanonical texts. Irenaeus: Frequently cited books like Tobit and Baruch as scripture. Clement of Alexandria: Treated the Septuagint, which includes the deuterocanonical books, as authoritative scripture. Origen: Accepted the deuterocanonical books as scripture, though he also noted that some books were considered "apocryphal" by some traditions. Cyprian: Accepted the deuterocanonical books as scripture. Athanasius: Initially excluded the books, but later accepted them, stating they were profitable for instruction in godliness. Pope Innocent I: In a letter to the bishop of Toulouse, cited the deuterocanonical books as part of the Old Testament canon. Rufinus of Aquileia: Included the deuterocanonical books in his list of canonical books. Councils that accepted the texts Synod of Hippo (393) and the Councils of Carthage (393, 397, and 419): These councils, with Augustine playing a leading role, drew up lists that included the deuterocanonical books. Council of Rome (382): The Decretum Gelasianum, a list from this council, included the deuterocanonical books as part of the Old Testament canon. Is there any evidence that Jesus authorized (inspired) the writing of any book of the New Testament? Even if all four canonical Gospels were written by one of the Twelve or a close associate (a claim hotly disputed by modern scholars), how do we know that Jesus inspired these men to write these books? How do we know that these books are historically accurate and not embellished tales written for the purpose of winning converts to the new movement? Jesus quoted primarily from the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes the deuterocanonical texts (Apocrypha). If Jesus rejected these texts as Scripture, why did he primarily quote from a Greek translation that included these texts and not from the Hebrew Masoretic texts which did not? Many scholars believe that Jesus and some authors of the New Testament allude to deuterocanonical (Apocryphal) passages as if they are Scripture: The author of Hebrews refers to the martyrdom of the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees 7 when writing about those who were tortured and refused to be released to obtain a better resurrection (Hebrews 11:35). The Epistle of Jude quotes from the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch as scripture (Jude 14-15 cites 1 Enoch 1:9). Jesus never prophesied that a new addition to Holy Scripture (the Jewish Bible) would occur after his death. According to the author of Matthew, Jesus commissioned the Twelve to teach the people of the world everything that he had commanded. That’s it! There is no evidence that Jesus ever gave the Twelve or Paul the authority to create new teachings or new scripture. “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you.” Did Jesus ever command that Jews should stop circumcising their children? No. Did Jesus ever command that Jews should stop eating kosher? No. Did Jesus ever command that offerings to God in the Temple should cease? No. These are all changes made by the Church. What evidence do you have that the Church (i.e., the leaders of the Church) were given authority by God to make these drastic changes to Holy Scripture?
    • Scott
      Oct 22nd, 2025
      Hi Gary, Hi. You make some good points. Obviously Protestants and Catholics (and the church Fathers) have disagreed on this for centuries, and both have their own good reasons for doing so. Clearly, you have your reasons for including them. I don’t find them persuasive. I don’t think simply appealing to church councils is definitive. You ask why I accept Nicea and not Carthage. I’ll just ask why you accept Carthage and not Nicea. You mention Augustine who accepted them. I’ll mention Jerome who did not. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it: In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. And it was no doubt the value placed on them by many church leader that gave pause to other church leaders, and vice-versa. And the fact that all of them saw the instructive value they provided. As with NT apocryphal texts, like the Shepherd of Hermas, what made it so hard and take so long to decide was that these works contained useful teaching. But the question was, “did they bear the marks of inspired Scripture?” As I stated earlier, my main problem with them is that it does not appear that the Jews viewed them as Scripture. If the Jews didn’t, then neither did Jesus or his apostles. Doesn’t mean they didn’t read them or find them useful. But they weren’t included in the list of books considered “Scripture”. Your suggestion that Jesus must have accepted them because he quoted from the LXX is inconclusive since the LXX was translated between 250 – 132 B.C. Initially it was only the Torah (5 books of the Law) that were translated, with the rest following. This is the same time period in which many of the apocryphal books were being written. And the earliest evidence we have of their inclusion in the LXX are codices from the 4th century (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) This doesn’t mean Jesus wasn’t familiar with them and maybe even alluded to them. But it’s far from proof that he accepted them as Scripture. Yes, NT authors like Hebrews and Jude allude to or quote them. This doesn’t prove they viewed them as Scripture any more than Paul viewed the Greek poets he quoted in Acts 17 as Scripture. No, Jesus didn’t tell the apostles to write anything. But he invested them with authority to be his witnesses and promogulated his teaching in his place. (Matt. 10:40; John 16:13-15; 17:20-21; Acts 1:8; Eph 2:20) If the NT church viewed the apostles teaching as authoritatively from Jesus, then why would they not view their teaching preserved in written form the same way? Thanks for the healthy exchange.
  • Gary
    Oct 22nd, 2025
    Thank you for the very informative response, Scott. Yes, there were controversies among the early Church Fathers regarding the deuterocanonical texts and other texts like the Shepherd of Hermes. But there were also controversies regarding books which were eventually included in the canon: Hebrews James 2 Peter 2-3 John Jude Revelation If the early Church was unsure of which books were Scripture and which were not, how can we today be certain that the books that eventually did make it into the canon are the divine Word of God? It was a purely HUMAN decision. You cannot prove that the Holy Spirit directed the formation of the New Testament canon when controversies swirled regarding the canon into the fourth and even fifth centuries. You are placing blind trust in human beings, the leaders of the early Church: the Magisterium. "But he invested them with authority to be his witnesses and promogulated his teaching in his place. (Matt. 10:40; John 16:13-15; 17:20-21; Acts 1:8; Eph 2:20) " Yes, in the Great Commission, Jesus authorizes his disciples to go into the world and teach HIS commandments. There is no record that he ever authorized them to make new doctrines or add new books of Scripture. Specifically, Jesus did not command the disciples to teach that believers no longer need to be circumcised, eat kosher, or offer sacrifices in the Temple. Jesus never authorized his disciples to write books which they would declare on their own to be on equal footing with the Bible of Jesus' day, the Septuagint.
    • Scott
      Oct 22nd, 2025
      Hi Gary, Just a few more responses: To your final point, I think you need to be cautious of arguments from silence. As John points out, the gospels account of Jesus acts and teaching are not exhaustive. We don’t know everything he said to them. Only what we have recorded. (John 21:24) Regarding the canon, you’re right, we shouldn’t be putting our trust in church leaders. They are human, and therefore fallible. Our trust, however, is in God and his faithfulness to reveal his infallible Word to us. Let's face it, if God wanted his church to have his true Word, he'd make it happen. Since Scripture is God’s Word there is no human authority that can decide what is Scripture and what isn’t. All we can do is recognize the authority of God’s word when he reveals it. Can we do this infallibly? No. But since it is God revealing his Word to his people, we can expect that in the aggregate, the Holy Spirit will lead his fallible people over time to recognize his Word. And you see this begin to happen with the earliest canon lists. For example, the Muratorian Fragment (ca. 170), Melito’s List (ca. 170), and Origen’s commentaries (ca. 220-240) were all written before any church councils were called. And yet they contain the significant core of the books we accept today as canonical. Notably, not all the lists are identical, but the core is there. And why were they included? Because the growing consensus among Christians being lead by the Holy Spirit was that they recognized these as God’s authoritative Word. And it’s worth remembering, that debates about apocryphal books aside, by the fourth century the 66 books contained in today’s Protestant Bible were pretty much settled upon by both the western and eastern churches. The Holy Spirit enabled God’s people everywhere to recognize his authoritative voice within these books. For your interest, I found a good explanatory video on the subject of “a fallible list of infallible books” done by Gavin Ortland. You might find it informative. I can't embed a url in the comments, so if you go to YouTube and search "Gavin Orland Fallible List of Infallible Books" you'll find it. Blessings
  • Gary
    Oct 22nd, 2025
    "But since it is God revealing his Word to his people, we can expect that in the aggregate, the Holy Spirit will lead his fallible people over time to recognize his Word." The problem that I see with your position, Scott, is that your entire belief system rests upon the assumption that the early Church was led by the Holy Spirit (God). What evidence do you have to support that claim? Jesus never taught anyone to abandon the Law of Moses. In the Great Commission, he ordered his disciples to teach only what he had commanded. So who directed the early Church to create a "new testament" and to abandon circumcision, eating kosher, and offering sacrifices in the Temple. It clearly wasn't Jesus or there would not have been any controversy among the disciples over these issues. What if Jesus never intended for his followers to abandon Moses' law? If that is the case, the Jewish people, not Christians, are the true believers. Jews remained faithful to their God and rejected Christian claims that Jesus was God.
    • Scott
      Oct 24th, 2025
      "The problem that I see with your position, Scott, is that your entire belief system rests upon the assumption that the early Church was led by the Holy Spirit (God)." Gary, why is that a problem? If Jesus was who he claimed to be, then everything he said was true. And what he clearly said was that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead his church. "What evidence do you have to support that claim?" John 16:12-15 12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you. (John 16:12-15) Observe: - Jesus clearly states that he had not told his disciples everything yet. There was more to come that they weren’t yet able to hear. - Jesus clearly states that the “more” would come via the Holy Spirit who would “guide” (i.e. lead) them into all truth. - Jesus clearly states that the Holy Spirit would disclose to them what was yet to come from him, (i.e. his words). - The context is Jesus speaking to his apostles. This isn’t a universal promise for all Christians, but a specific one indicating that through the Holy Spirit his apostles would be given further revelation from God. This is the basis for the apostolic authority that the church has always attributed to Jesus’ apostles. - i.e. Their teaching would be Spirit inspired and therefore authoritative. - That being the case, what does it matter if their teaching was oral, or written? If it was teaching about Jesus coming from an apostle, it was Spirit inspired and had authority. "Jesus never taught anyone to abandon the Law of Moses." No, but he did say he came to “fulfill” it. (Matt. 5:17-19) Not “keep”. Not “enforce”. “Fulfill”, which means to complete and accomplish what the law was meant to do. And according to Jesus the law was not meant to produce the righteousness that God requires. (Matt. 5:20) Jesus even points out the weakness of the law, in that because of human sin, God had to include accommodating laws that did not result in righteous acts, but merely mitigated sin. (see Matt. 19:3-9) "In the Great Commission, he ordered his disciples to teach only what he had commanded." Not quite. He said “teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you.” If I commanded you to ride a bike and you didn’t know how, teaching you to obey that command wouldn’t just involve repeating the command. It would involve teaching you how to make application of the command. That would involve saying much, more than just “ride your bike”. The apostles didn’t just teach the church ‘what’ Christ commanded, but ‘how’ live out life of obedience to what Christ commanded. "So who directed the early Church to create a "new testament" and to abandon circumcision, eating kosher, and offering sacrifices in the Temple. It clearly wasn't Jesus or there would not have been any controversy among the disciples over these issues." Through the illumination and leading of the Holy Spirit, Jesus taught his apostles how He was the fulfillment of the law, and therefore how to attain to the righteousness that the law could only point to by putting their faith in and following him. They didn’t teach anyone to “abandon” things like circumcision, eating kosher, or offering sacrifices. They taught Christian how Jesus fulfilled these things, and in so doing made many of these outward symbols obsolete. **Note – it was Jesus who got the ball rolling by declaring eating kosher obsolete.** Mark 7:18 - Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and [g]is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)
  • Gary
    Oct 23rd, 2025
    I'm sure my comment comes out of left field for you, Scott. It questions the very foundation of your belief system. But that is what I encourage all people, theists and non-theists, to do. We should each take a fresh look at our worldview with an open mind using the Socratic Method (critical thinking skills), dropping all assumptions. I think you will be surprised by what you will discover. Best wishes!
    • Scott
      Oct 24th, 2025
      Thanks Gary. You seem to have very noble intentions. However, I guess I would conclude by encouraging you to continue to do the same, including questioning your own assumptions. In one of your earlier posts, you pointed out the folly of placing blind trust in the early church leaders, the Magisterium. I agree. While I do think God gives authority to church leadership, I believe it’s appropriate office is Ministerium. The Magisterial (i.e ultimate authority) role belongs to the Holy Spirit. According to Jesus, he is our full and final authority by which we may come to know what is true. This doesn’t mean that he bypasses our reasoning or absolves us of the need to think. But our critical thinking skills also serve in a ministerial capacity since our ultimate authority comes from God. After all, if God really is God, then what greater authority do we have to appeal to for truth? While the Socratic method can be a useful tool, and critical thinking is important, you cannot escape having to wrestle with this question as well. Simply appealing to reason and critical thinking is insufficient, since that too rests upon the assumption that your reasoning can reliably lead you into truth. But upon what basis do you assume this? What is your reason for trusting in your reason? Whatever that is is the foundation for your belief system. Is that foundation sufficient to put all your trust in? Can it provide you with a stable enough foundation upon which to establish your life, face life’s greatest questions and challenges, and secure your hope? I’m in the same boat. I can’t escape having to rest all of my reasoning upon a foundation that I cannot prove by my reason. I must simply begin, by faith, treat that foundation as sufficient to build my life on, and then see if it holds. Proverbs 1:7 says “the fear of the Lord is the beginning (i.e. foundation) of knowledge”. Jesus said he was “the way and the truth and the life” (Jn. 14:6). I have spent my life testing God’s revelation of himself in Jesus as the sure foundation upon which to build my life, my mind, my worldview, and my ultimate hope. He has proven himself sufficient. God bless!
  • Gary
    Oct 24th, 2025
    Good morning! Excellent discussion, Scott. Scott: If Jesus was who he claimed to be, then everything he said was true. And what he clearly said was that he would send the Holy Spirit to lead his church. Gary: How do we know what Jesus claimed? Do we have any undisputed statements from him? No. The authorship of the Gospels is hotly disputed among experts. It is possible these books were written by eyewitnesses. It is possible they were not. Therefore, we are uncertain what exactly Jesus claimed. Some believe that Jesus only claimed to be the promised Jewish messiah whom God had given special powers, such as the power to pronounce God's forgiveness of sins (the Synoptics). Some believe that Jesus claimed to be God (the Gospel of John). The fact is, Jesus' divine status was not settled until the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. If Jesus had made it crystal clear to the Twelve who he was, why would the Church flounder on this issue for 300 years? That is the problem with most of Christianity's claims. The evidence for almost every major Christian claim is muddled and disputed. There is no solid, undisputed evidence that Jesus claimed to be God; no solid, undisputed evidence that Jesus instructed his followers to abandon the Law of Moses. No solid, undisputed evidence that the Gospels are eyewitness, historically accurate accounts. Did you realize that no single post-mortem appearance story occurs in two or more Gospels? They are all different (alleged) appearances. There is no corroboration of any single post-mortem appearance! Would you believe post-mortem appearance stories today for which there was no corroboration?? I don't think so. So why do you believe these uncorroborated ancient dead person sighting claims? The evidence is not good, Scott. Christianity's evidence is weak and hotly disputed. So why would an obviously intelligent person like yourself believe such weak, disputed evidence? I believe it is for two reasons: 1. It is likely the belief system of your parents or at least the belief system of your culture. 2. You believe that the resurrected Jesus lives in your heart and that he communicates with you on a daily basis in a still, small voice, often answering your wish requests and occasionally performing minor miracles for you. Is that rational? If someone today claims that the spirit of his grandfather lives inside him, communicates with him in a non-audible fashion, and performs minor miracles for him, you and I both would assume he is delusional. So why shouldn't people think the same of you?
    • Scott
      Oct 27th, 2025
      Hi Gary, Unfortunately your final conclusions are based on your underlying assumption that Christianity is untrue. But you haven't demonstrated this...at all. All you've done is state, emphatically and repeatedly, that it is "disputed". But what does that prove? Are there disputes? Yes. Does that mean we can't have good reasons to believe them? No. The mere presence of dispute only negates the possibility of Christianity being true if, as you have done, you set your epistemic threshold for knowing what's true at "undisputed". But are you seriously suggesting that the only truth claims we can take to be true are ones that are undisputed? Is that the threshold you use in your own life? If so, I wonder what, if anything, you claim to know is true?
  • Gary
    Oct 24th, 2025
    Scott: After all, if God really is God, then what greater authority do we have to appeal to for truth? While the Socratic method can be a useful tool, and critical thinking is important, you cannot escape having to wrestle with this question as well. Simply appealing to reason and critical thinking is insufficient, since that too rests upon the assumption that your reasoning can reliably lead you into truth. But upon what basis do you assume this? What is your reason for trusting in your reason? Whatever that is is the foundation for your belief system. Is that foundation sufficient to put all your trust in? Can it provide you with a stable enough foundation upon which to establish your life, face life’s greatest questions and challenges, and secure your hope? Gary: If the Christian god exists, you are absolutely correct. But the same is true for the Muslim god, the Mormon god, and the Hindu gods. If Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, or Hinduism is true, then I would be foolish to reject them. But which of these theistic belief systems is true? Several of them are mutually exclusive, so they can't all be true. So how should human beings go about discovering the Truth? One option is divine revelation. In this option we close our eyes and pray to a generic Creator God, asking him (her/they/it) to reveal himself. Many people have done this. The strange thing is, people raised Muslim find Allah. People raised Hindu for Lord Krishna. People raised Mormon find the Mormon god. People raised Christian usually find Jesus. So divine revelation does not seem to be very reliable. It seems to have a strong cultural bias. Not so with the scientific method, reason, and good critical thinking skills. These methods of truth discovery are true across all cultures. I will bet that when faced with major decisions in your life such as buying a house or a car, you too choose reason and good critical thinking skills over divine revelation. Would you look at prospective houses and choose one based solely on divine revelation? I bet you wouldn't. You would use reason and good critical thinking skills to see if you can afford the down payment and the monthly mortgage. You might pray for Jesus' guidance afterwards, but you would not sign the purchase agreement without doing your own critical thinking and evaluation. Your own behavior indicates that reason and good critical thinking skills are far better methods of truth discovery than "faith".
    • Scott
      Oct 31st, 2025
      Hi Gary, Forgive me for being a little behind in responding. It's been a busy week on many fronts, and I've not had time to sit down to write a response (s). I'll start from your last comment on the 24th, which I think raises an important point. Gary: Not so with the scientific method, reason, and good critical thinking skills. These methods of truth discovery are true across all cultures. I will bet that when faced with major decisions in your life such as buying a house or a car, you too choose reason and good critical thinking skills over divine revelation. Would you look at prospective houses and choose one based solely on divine revelation? I bet you wouldn't. You would use reason and good critical thinking skills to see if you can afford the down payment and the monthly mortgage. You might pray for Jesus' guidance afterwards, but you would not sign the purchase agreement without doing your own critical thinking and evaluation. Scott: Sorry, I think I wasn't clear in the point I was trying to make. I was not appealing to divine revelation as my method of discovering truth, but as my axiomatic starting point. You are absolutely right to suggest that in the everyday decisions of life, I rely upon my reason, critical thinking, and even the scientific method in order to discover and know many truths. Like you, I trust my reasoning as a reliable faculty/methods for knowing many (but I would argue not all) things that are true. But in order to remain rational, we must also have a justifiable reason (an epistemological foundation) for trusting our reason (an epistemological method) My reason (epistemological foundation) for trusting my own reason is God. Since God has revealed himself to be the rational, omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the universe, I have good reason for believing that my reason (epistemological method) can reliably discover true knowledge about the world. So, the question I was trying to put to you is, what is your epistemological foundation? What is your reason for trusting in the reliability of your reason, critical thinking, or the scientific method?
  • Gary
    Oct 27th, 2025
    Excellent observations, Scott. I wasn’t sufficiently clear in my statement regarding disputed claims. Let me rephrase my argument: All the major claims of Christianity are disputed. Should all disputed claims be rejected outright? No. Of course not. There are very few truth claims on our planet that are not disputed. Did NASA put a spaceship and man on the moon? A small group of people dispute that claim. Is the earth a sphere? A small group of people dispute that claim. They believe the earth is flat. When I say the major claims of Christianity are disputed, I mean that these historical claims are disputed among the experts. There is no expert consensus. When the experts are divided on an issue, most university educated people remain neutral on that issue until the experts reach a consensus. That is what I am suggesting should be done with the major truth claims of Christianity. I cannot disprove Christianity’s supernatural claims. But I can prove that there is no expert consensus on any of Christianity’s major claims and therefore educated people should remain neutral/undecided on the veracity of Christianity’s claims. Jesus is the creator of the universe. This is truly the most far-fetched of all Christianity’s claims. There is no good evidence that the creator of this complex universe was a first century Jewish peasant. Even if Jesus did heal a few people and was seen again after his public execution, that is insufficient evidence to prove he is our creator. 2. Jesus was a god with supernatural powers that allowed him to perform laws-of-physics defying miracles. You won’t find Jesus’ miracles in any history textbook. That is because the overwhelming majority of experts do not believe there is sufficient evidence to support the historicity of these claims. Healers and miracle-workers come a dime a dozen in human history. 2. Jesus fulfilled numerous Jewish messianic prophecies. The experts are divided on this issue. The overwhelming majority of Jewish scholars reject this claim. They allege that the Christian authors of the Gospels shoehorned Jesus into Jewish Bible passages by mistranslation and sometimes by deliberate fabrication (“he shall be called a Nazarene”). On the other hand, most Christian experts believe the above claim is true. However, even some Christian experts are willing to admit that some OT prophecies were originally not about Jesus (i.e., Isaiah 7). 3. Jesus returned from the dead. Most experts agree that some of Jesus’ disciples believed Jesus had returned from the dead and appeared to them, in some fashion. However, not one alleged post-mortem sighting of Jesus can be found in any public university history textbook. That is likely because the alleged appearances only involved members of the Jesus movement, a vision-prone rabbi, and maybe a brother. It isn’t as if Jesus suddenly appeared in front of the Sanhedrin and Pilate. In addition, the sighting claims are uncorroborated. Each post-mortem sighting listed in the Gospels is unique. There is no corroboration of any one sighting. The alleged Jesus sightings are therefore no different than modern day Elvis sightings. No corroboration. 4. Jesus’ guarded tomb was found empty. While is is true that most Christian Bible scholars believe this claim to be historically factual, the fact that this claim is not listed as a fact in any public university history textbook demonstrates that most professional historians do not find the evidence for this claim compelling. 5. The disciples would not have died for a lie. That is usually true. But tens of thousands of people throughout history have been willing to suffer and die horrific deaths for mistaken beliefs. The most probable explanation for the origin of the Resurrection Belief is therefore: religious hysteria. One disciple had a vivid dream, trance, or hallucination of Jesus and this ignited the wildfire of religious hysteria. Soon, every disciple and even groups of disciples were seeing Jesus in every bright light, shadow, and cloud. We have seen this phenomenon many times in human history. Why believe that the Resurrection Legend is any different?
    • Scott
      Oct 31st, 2025
      In reply to your October 27th comment: Gary: But I can prove that there is no expert consensus on any of Christianity’s major claims and therefore educated people should remain neutral/undecided on the veracity of Christianity’s claims. Scott: A couple points. First, we need to be careful not to equate expert consensus with evidence. However, expert evidence is certainly important since, well, they're the experts. But I want to question your suggestion that given expert non-consensus educated people "should remain neutral/undecided." I think in some cases, remaining agnostic is a reasonable stance. For example, does General Relativity provide the best model of physics to describe the physical universe, or does Quantum Mechanics. The experts are divided. I can Google both and understand the most basic, layman's explanation of the arguments and evidence. But that's as far as I go because at the end of the day I'm not a physicist and the answer doesn't make a difference to me personally. But the Christian gospel confronts me with a decision. Jesus calls me to turn over my life to him in exchange for new life with him. Sustained neutrality toward the truth claims of Christianity isn't an option in this case because the Christian gospel is confronting me with a decision to believe or not. And, the stakes are of ultimate personally significance. Now, back to your point about the divided experts for a moment. I'm not suggesting that we believe in spite of the evidence. I would argue that I can come to believe that the claims of Christianity are true without the need for evidence and that I am perfectly justified and rational for doing so given the nature of Christian faith. But maybe that's another discussion. What I would say, however, is that if in considering the truth claims of the Christian faith I survey the evidence available from both sides of the expert isle, that although I am not an expert, if I find the expert evidential arguments in support of Christian faith more compelling than those of experts against, I don't think I am unjustified or irrational to decide in favour of accepting that evidence as confirmation that Christianity is true. I really don't follow your line of reasoning that says I cannot take evidential arguments as good evidence if there are experts who disagree. Especially if I look at their arguments and don't find them persuasive.
  • Gary
    Oct 30th, 2025
    Scott, do you perceive the presence of the resurrected Jesus dwelling within you?
    • Scott
      Oct 31st, 2025
      Gary: Scott, do you perceive the presence of the resurrected Jesus dwelling within you? Scott: That's a very intriguing question. I'll be interested in your response, so without a lot of explanation I'll just answer "sometimes" for now.
Your Comment
Your Information