It is surprising today that some people who bear the title, “New Testament Scholar,” doubt the reliability of the New Testament. Most people who read the books and articles of these scholars are under the assumption that because these persons are defined as scholars, they know what they are talking about.

When we examine the reasons that these scholars give us for why they believe the New Testament is not reliable, we find that their conclusions are based upon personal opinion, consensus amongst their peers, and a lack of trust in the miraculous portions of these texts—not upon any evidence that the texts are not reliable.

We might wonder why, if the New Testament is not reliable, early scholars did not expose the unreliability of these texts?

An Example Of Modern New Testament Errors: Bart Ehrman

In the opening statement of his book, “How Jesus Became God,” Atheist Theologian, Bart Ehrman, makes the following observation:

“JESUS WAS A LOWER-CLASS Jewish preacher from the backwaters of rural Galilee who was condemned for illegal activities and crucified for crimes against the state. Yet not long after his death, his followers were claiming that he was a divine being. Eventually they went even further, declaring that he was none other than God, Lord of heaven and earth. And so the question: How did a crucified peasant come to be thought of as the Lord who created all things? How did Jesus become God?”1

From this premise that Jesus was nothing more than a crucified peasant, Ehrman expresses his opinion that Jesus cannot be God. The entire book is dedicated to the principle that Jesus never claimed to be God Himself, it was the writers of the four Gospels who made Him God.

Here is the problem with Ehrman’s hypothesis:

These ideas are not supported by the evidence of history, nor the text of the 24,593 extant copies of the New Testament we have today.

First, we must remember that the very reason Jesus was arrested by the religious leaders of Israel was for blasphemy.

In the words of the Pharisees, Jesus was crucified because He, being a man, claimed to be God.

In John 10:30-33, Jesus told the Pharisees, “I and My Father are one. Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

The term, I and my father are one, is a clear statement where Jesus is claiming that God, whom He claims is His Father, and He are one and the same. We understand what Jesus meant by this statement in seeing how the Pharisees responded; they pick up stones to kill Jesus for Blasphemy.

Jesus Faces the Sanhedrin In Matthew’s Gospel

Matthew describes Jesus before the high priest as He is questioned about His true identity. The high priest uses an ancient Hebrew imperative to interrogate Jesus by placing Him under oath: are you the Christ, the Son of God?

There is no ambiguity regarding what is being asked or asserted concerning Jesus. The high priest is demanding an answer from Jesus because it was well known by this time that He had, on several occasions, claimed to be the Son of God.

And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”Jesus said to him, “It is as you said.

Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!  What do you think?” They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”  ~Matthew 26:62-66

Jesus answers in the affirmative that He is the Son of God, just as the high priest has said. Then Jesus uses two confirming scriptures from Daniel chapter 7 where the prophet describes the Messiah as the Son of Man, coming with the clouds.

I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.  ~Daniel 7:13-14

Daniel is the first to use the term Son of Man to describe the Messiah, and the only writer to use the phrase, coming with the clouds, in the Old Testament.

John also writes in the Book of Revelation, that Jesus will be coming with the clouds when He returns.

Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him (Zechariah 12:10). And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him. Even so, Amen.  ~Revelation 1:7

The term clouds is used in Hebrews 12:1 to describe those who are in heaven as witnesses, watching our progress here on earth. John said that when Jesus returns, these cloud of witnesses will be coming with Him to reign over the earth as Messiah.

Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.  ~ Hebrews 12:1

Here, Jesus applies both of Daniel’s terms, clouds and Son of Man, to Himself. Jesus also confirmed to the Pharisees in Matthew 26:62-66, above, that He is the Son of God.

By these three declarations to the Pharisees, that He is the Son of God, The Son of Man, and Coming with the clouds, Jesus is confirming three things:

1. He is God.
2. He Is Messiah.
3. He Is coming again to rule over the kingdom promised to David that will never end.

There is no mistake in what Jesus has told the Pharisees. We see by the response of the high priest in tearing his garments, that he clearly understood that Jesus was claiming to be God. It was upon this declaration that the high priest pronounces “blasphemy,” and declares that Jesus should be put to death.

Did you also notice here that in addition to Jesus saying He is God and the Messiah, we also see that the Old Testament predicted the Messiah would be God?

Does this exchange between Jesus and the high priest look to you like it was fabricated? How is it that these simple men who penned the four Gospels had the ability to construct such an elaborate myth, even using the prophets of the Old Testament to play a part in their deception?

As this book progresses, you will see that in order to accept Ehrman’s theory that the disciples of Jesus made up the story that He is God, we would have to believe that the writers of the Old Testament were also in on this deceit.

The text written by Matthew contains references to Old Testament prophecies by Daniel, with allusions to Zechariah. John must also be in on the deception because he used the term “clouds” in describing the return of Jesus in the book of Revelation.

We see that Luke is a part of the conspiracy because he begins His gospel by referencing the prophecies of 2 Samuel 7:14, Isaiah 9: 6a, Isaiah 9: 6b, and Isaiah 9: 6c.1a

When the angel Gabriel told Joseph that the Son whom Mary carried in her womb was the Son of God, he said He will fulfill Daniel’s prophecy, David’s prophecy, and Isaiah’s prophecies of Messiah; and the promise of God that David would have a future descendant who will be the Son of God and Messiah who will reign forever.

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”  ~Luke 1:31-33

How wide, how far this deception Jesus’ Gospel is, even the entire Old Testament is involved!

This description by Jesus that He is God as He is before the Pharisees is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke’s Gospels.

You can see here that the hypothesis of Dr. Ehrman is beginning to unwind.

The Assertion That Jesus Is Only God In John’s Gospel

One of the stunning claims of Bart Ehrman regarding Jesus is his insistence that only the Gospel of John contains text where Jesus claims to be God.

Years later, when I was working on an advanced degree at Princeton Theological Seminary, this form of traditional theology had come to seem less than satisfying to me, as I had begun to entertain doubts about some of the most fundamental aspects of the faith, including the question of the divinity of Jesus. During those intervening years I had come to realize that Jesus is hardly ever, if at all, explicitly called God in the New Testament. I realized that some of the authors of the New Testament do not equate Jesus with God. I had become impressed with the fact that the sayings of Jesus in which he claimed to be God were found only in the Gospel of John, the last and most theologically loaded of the four Gospels. If Jesus really went around calling himself God, wouldn’t the other Gospels at least mention the fact? Did they just decide to skip that part?

Do you remember the text we just looked at where Jesus is before the Pharisees and the high priest puts Jesus under oath? Jesus affirms that He is God and then uses the prophecies of Messiah from Daniel 7, 2 Samuel 7:14, Isaiah 9:6a, Isaiah 9:6b, and Isaiah 9:6c to confirm Himself as God and Messiah.

This text where Jesus affirms with His own words that He is God is found in Matthew 26:62-66, Mark 14:60-64, and Luke 22:66-7.

According to Dr. Ehrman, there is no text in Matthew, Mark, and Luke where Jesus explicitly claims to be God. In all three of these examples above, Jesus is described as being condemned to death because He committed blasphemy for claiming to be God.

Dr. Ehrman is described as “an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity.”

With these credentials and over 20 books in publication, Dr. Ehrman doesn’t know that Jesus claimed to be God in all four Gospels?

This is a stunning revelation!

Perhaps this is the reason that Dr. Ehrman has written so many books asserting that the New Testament does not contain text where Jesus confirms that He is God. He hasn’t really studied the text, but has simply followed the teaching of other scholars who don’t believe Jesus is God.

As you can see from the text we just examined together, Jesus clearly was telling the high priest that He is God and will be coming with the clouds of heaven as the Son of Man, to rule a kingdom on earth that will never end.

It is not really possible to be any clearer that these texts illustrate this fact.

Most of us assume that a person who is described as a New Testament Scholar knows what they are talking about. The problem is that many of these men and women are atheists or agnostics. If a person begins with the idea that God doesn’t exist, of course they are going to object to any text in the New Testament that describes Jesus as God or performing supernatural works.

The question we must ask is why we should trust anyone who seeks to teach us the history of the Bible when they cannot find places in the four Gospels where Jesus clearly declares that He is God.

The Preceding is from my new book: “Why Jesus Is God, And Others Are Not.”

The First Christian Apologist, Origen

Some people have the idea that the term “apologist,” is one who seeks to apologize for the Christian faith. In fact, the Apologist is defined as one who presents evidence to defend the truth of the particular subjects they are upholding.

The first apologists were seen early in the second century. As Jesus’ church began to grow and people heard the incredible accounts of how He had risen from the dead, various heresies also arose.

These adversaries were the first critics of the four Gospels. They twisted the words of scripture, much like critics do today. It was about this time that the Christian church developed their Creeds to solidify the fundamental principles for what people believed about Jesus who had died and rose again.

Fortunate for us today, the early writing of the four Gospels were well known and there was no doubts about their authorship or authenticity from the beginning. Critics such as Lucian (a writer), Galen (a physician), and Celsus (a philosopher) enjoyed some scope of influence. We know about Celsus from the writings of Origin who argued vigorously against Celsus’ ideas:

• “Jesus is not God.”
• “There are secret teachings about Jesus that the church has hidden.”
• “God cannot be eternal and yet be known.”

From these objections and the writings of the first Christian Apologists, we can conclude that intellectual criticism of the Christian faith was very common by the second century.

Some alleged scholars today who are found to be atheists, before they write that God does not exist, allege that they have a unique position in history as the first substantial critics and examiners of the claims of Jesus Christ.

What we discover when we actually investigate the resolute history of the New Testament, which is extant today, is that Christianity has always had its critics.

We might ask why critics began immediately after Jesus’ resurrection was made known. The answer is obvious. Truth is always vigorously opposed when it stands in opposition to how people want to live. Jesus said that people hate Him because He said that their deeds are evil. He stated that unless we all repent, we will all be lost.

Atheism has never been about a lack of evidence to believe, but about an agenda for a lifestyle desired.

When we read the objections that were leveled against the early Christian church, beginning just after news of Jesus began to spread throughout the world, we see a clear indication that the primary doctrines of the New Testament were already well established before these 27 books took their final form.

Ideas from liberal atheist theologians that the principles of the Christian faith which are taught today, are somehow different from what the early believers were teaching, is not true. Jesus’ virgin birth, the actual physical resurrection, and His clear existence as God as asserted by Himself and predicted by the Old Testament, were doctrines that were widely taught and proven from the very beginning.

Apologists today, such as myself, are continuing a long line of tradition to defend the truth of Jesus’ Gospel because it has always been true.

In 248 A.D., Origen successfully confirmed the miracles of Jesus, His claim to be God, and the resurrection against pagan philosopher, Celsus.[1]

In Origen’s defense of Jesus, called Contra Celsum, this early Christian apologist refuted all of the same criticisms that are being brought by Bart Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar participants today. Over 1,750 years ago, Origen refuted the ideas that Jesus was not capable of miracles, He didn’t claim to be God, and His resurrection never happened.

From the beginning, just after Jesus had healed, raised the dead, calmed the sea, and risen Himself from the dead, critics rose up to deny these things had happened. Men like Origen successfully defended these false ideas with evidence from the near historical record which existed at that time. Origen’s work in 248 A.D., became the most impactful of all early Christian apologetics works.[1]

New Testament scholars today regard Origen’s book which refuted the attacks against Jesus’ deity and resurrection that are being made once again today, as effectively neutralized as a threat. Over 1,750 years ago, Christianity received “unprecedented academic reputability.”[1]

In chapter 67 of Origen’s rebuttal of Celsus’ denial of Jesus’ Deity, Contra Celsum, he writes:

“For we assert that the whole habitable world contains evidence of the works of Jesus.”[2]

In chapter 68, Celsus denied that Jesus was capable of miracles and that He rose from the dead. Origen writes in defense and describes the arguments made by Celsus:

“But after this, Celsus, having a suspicion that the great works performed by Jesus, of which we have named a few out of a great number, would be brought forward to view, affects to grant that those statements may be true which are made regarding His cures, or His resurrection, or the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves, from which many fragments remained over, or those other stories which Celsus thinks the disciples have recorded as of a marvellous nature.”[3]

Using the same text we have today in our New Testament, Origen defines the testimonies of those who saw Jesus perform miracles and risen from the dead as valid testimony. Even at this very early date in history, there were already denials of Jesus’ miracles and resurrection.

Today, critics who assert themselves as New Testament scholars state that because the accounts in our New Testament were written so long ago, we really don’t know if they are reliable. In the mind of some, we can’t really know if what we have in our Bible today is really what happened.

“The first thing to stress is that if we want to know about any figure from the past, we need to have sources of information. This may seem obvious enough, but for some reason, when it comes to Jesus, people seem to think that they simply know who he was, what he said, or what he did—almost as if they gained this knowledge by osmosis from the environment.

In fact, however, anything you know about Jesus, or think you know, has come to you from a source—either someone has told you, or you have read what someone has written. But where did these people get their information, what makes them authorities, and why should you think they are right?”8d  ~Bart Ehrman

Ehrman continues and seeks to create doubt in the mind of his reader that what we think we know about Jesus from the New Testament is not reliable.

As we read the rebuttals of Origen from nearly 1,800 years ago, he states that the same text we have in our New Testament today was already known at this early date as absolutely reliable. Origen details his refutation to Celsus by recording texts from the New Testament which matches what we have in our Bible today.

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. ~1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Origen makes it certain that he knows the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are based upon eyewitness testimony of events that really took place.

“But how should not He (Jesus) who, by the miracles which He did, induced those who beheld the excellent results to undertake the reformation of their characters, manifest Himself not only to His genuine disciples, but also to others.”8e ~Origen, Contra Celsum, Chapter 68

The idea brought forth by Ehrman and others that we can’t trust our New Testament because we don’t know if it is true is refuted by Origen in 248 A.D. Origen was certain at this early date that all the testimony of the New Testament was true. He successfully refuted Celsus, who also brought accusations that Jesus was not capable of miracles, nor did He rise from the dead.

Origen had access to records of the New Testament at that time that are virtually identical to those we have today, 1,800 years later. Ehrman said: “The first thing to stress is that if we want to know about any figure from the past, we need to have sources of information.”

Apparently Ehrman and others have not really studied the texts which exist today from just after the time when Jesus was crucified and risen, by sources like Origen. It is clear that there are many other sources to corroborate what the four gospels describe as truthful and accurate: Jesus did claim to be God, performed the miracles the Old Testament said the Messiah would be capable of, and did rise from the dead, just as Jesus said He would.

The New Testament Is Reliable

From the preceding, you can see that there has never been any evidence that what is written in the New Testament about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, has been proven to be unreliable.

In fact, the text of the New Testament passes every test required to determine whether events of past history can be relied upon as true accounts.

See The Article: “Why The New Testament Is a Valid Historical Narrative”

Every event of history is validated by methods that help us have confidence in past events as genuine and reliable. Regardless of whether they are religious or secular, all history is validated by the same processes

1. When was the source written or produced?
2. Where was it produced?
3. By whom was it produced?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced?
5. In what original form was it produced?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents?

The first four are recognized by historical experts as higher criticism; the fifth, as lower criticism; and, together, they are recognized as external criticism.

With the above six in mind, the following eight are the basic principles for determining whether any narrative is historical and Reliable:

1. Human sources may be relics or narratives that consist of statements or a letter.
2. Any source may be forged or corrupted. For this reason, there is a preeminent need to verify the originality of the source.
3. The closer the source is to the event for which it alleges to describe, the greater the trust that is given for an accurate historical description of what actually happened.
4. An eyewitness is more reliable than secondhand testimony or hearsay.
5. If there are several independent sources while telling the same story, the credibility of the narrative is increased exponentially.
6. The tendency of a source which has a clear bias, is motivation for the creation of false narratives. Internal evidence within the narrative that would detract from the story and make it less attractive are indications of balance and truthfulness.
7. If the witnesses to a story have no personal benefit or direct interest in proving the story other than to tell the truth, the narrative is more credible.
8. If the witnesses recall slightly different details of the events, even placing them in a different order, while telling the same story, this is evidence of truthful narratives.

When we apply these methods to any event of ancient history, we may be able to determine if the events are genuine events of history or contrived. When we apply these rules for analysis to the New Testament manuscripts, we find that they meet and exceed every requirement for valid historical events.

A large part of the historical records which validates the New Testament as a reliable representation of true events, are the early defenders of these texts against critics early in the history of the New Testament.

In reading the works of Origen, he quotes from all four of the Gospels in 230-250 A.D.

What is of particular interest is that Origen knew who the authors of the four Gospels were, and there is no mention in any of his commentaries that the true authors were in doubt.

When we read the quotations of Origin in his commentaries, we see that the text of our New Testament Gospels today, is the same text that Origen wrote in his commentaries nearly 1,800 years ago. If the four Gospels are the same today as they were at this early date, this is empirical evidence that the New Testament we have today is a reliable transmission of the true events Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote before the end of the first century.

There were more than 30 other Gospels that were under consideration at the time that only four were chosen. Because the Apostle John, an Eyewitness, was still alive when men like Polycarp assembled with other leaders to determine the true accounts of Jesus, John’s authority as an eyewitness provided empirical evidence for the reliability of the four Gospels we have today, and the elimination of all other alleged Gospels.

By the end of the first century, it was already widely known which books of the New Testament were reliable accounts of the actual events. By the third century, Greek Scholar and Christian Theologian, Origen, was already using the entire set of the twenty-seven books we have in our New Testament today.

Origen was one of the most prolific writers of history who penned over 800 treatises in many different divisions of theology, biblical exegesis, hermeneutics, and textual criticism. According to Epiphanius, Origen wrote over 6,000 different works during his life.

Known as the greatest textual critic of the early Christian church, Origen is considered one of the greatest biblical scholars of the second century. Writing commentaries on every book of the Bible, Origen was responsible for the entire body of text which became the New Testament.

It is for this reason that we know that men like Origen were in a position, after the first century, to correctly determine whether the four Gospels that described Jesus’ miracles, His assertion that He is God, and the Resurrection, were all valid and accurate.

Writing 32 commentaries on the Gospel of John and two on Matthew, Origen believed fervently that the Gospel writers wrote precisely what Jesus actually said and did.

As a great adherent to scripture, Origen would make no commentary regarding anything from the Bible without using a scriptural reference to support his views. In the mind of Origen, God was the true author of the Bible. The basis for this position was the testimony of the New Testament which cataloged the fulfillments of Jesus for over 400 Old Testament prophecies.

It is because of the incredible work of Origen in validating the authenticity of the New Testament narratives of Jesus that we can have tremendous confidence in their reliability today. Writing his commentaries on the New Testament so close to the time when the four Gospels were penned, Origen had no hesitation whatsoever in confirming that the eyewitness testimony of the four Gospels were genuine.

Origen wrote two commentaries on the facts of Jesus’ resurrection. Even at this early second century date, scholars had no problem fully corroborating the truth of the resurrection and the accounts detailed about Jesus from the four Gospels.

Confirming that Jesus was truly capable of performing miracles, Origen said this:

“Any one who examines the subject will see that Jesus attempted and successfully accomplished works beyond the reach of human power.”

Regarding whether there is evidence for Jesus from antiquity, Origen wrote the following:

“For we assert that the whole habitable world contains evidence of the works of Jesus.”

The preceding is from the book: “Why Jesus Is God, And Others Are Not,” by the same author

Important Questions Regarding The Reliability Of The New Testament

1. When any event of ancient history takes place and people record it upon pages and books, can a future generation accurately prove that these events did not take place, by evidence?
2. What evidence could they present to prove their assertion?
3. When these events are confirmed by later writers, like Apologist Origen, not many years after these texts are written, does this add evidence to the historical record to validate these events?
4. If there are Hebrew texts that were written 1400 years before the events of the New Testament took place which predicted these precise occasions, does this add credibility to the New Testament?
5. When the writers of these ancient events  state that they are eyewitnesses and that they know they are telling the truth, should we believe them?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then it is impossible to validate any event of ancient history.

• What if these texts survive for 2,000 years with the same descriptions of the same primary character; does this serve as evidence that people believed these events really happened?
• If these events were of supernatural origin, does this invalidate their validity?
• If people in a future generation, 2,000 years after these things took place, do not believe in supernatural events, does this invalidate these events?

Of course the answer to these questions is no. Belief that something is impossible, does not invalidate anything. There are many things that really happen in ancient history that people don’t believe, but they are still true.

• If an event happens in history that is recorded and later copied thousands of times so that many other people can know what happened, does this increase the likelihood that the events actually took place?
• What if there are more surviving copied which describe these events than any other event in the history of the world?

The fact that we have 24,593 surviving New Testament manuscripts, tells us that there were likely hundreds of thousands of copies made in the early years after Jesus rose from the dead. There are no other events of antiquity which even come close to the surviving numbers of New Testament manuscripts.

If the events described in the New Testament for Jesus were true, these are the kinds of numbers we would expect for surviving copies of the original autographs. By their shear surviving numbers we can fully validate that these events took place.

It is important to understand that there are no original autographs for any ancient events, secular or religious. This is because these texts were written on papyrus or other materials that could not survive 2,000 years or more. All that we have to prove any ancient event are manuscript copies.

Name one other true event of ancient history that has an equal or greater number of surviving manuscripts as the New Testament. There are none that are even close. Add to this fact that all of these manuscript copies match our New Testament today in every supernatural narrative of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Add to these, the fact that these texts have remained in the custody of the Christian Church for nearly 2,000 years and have always been held as accurate and reliable narratives.

There are no other ancient manuscripts which have the empirical evidence to support their authenticity, greater than those of the New Testament. If we are going to discredit the narratives of the New Testament as unreliable, we must also do the same for every other ancient event that is presented to us today by surviving manuscripts.

It is simply because the New Testament presents the world with a man who claims to be God, and then performed miracles to prove that He is God, even raising from the dead, that critics state we cannot trust the New Testament. It is not because there is no evidence that these texts are true, but merely because some people don’t believe God exists in the first place.

The reliability of all the narratives of Jesus, the Messiah, is fully proven and validated by the surviving Manuscript copies of the New Testament, alone. We do not need anything else to prove these texts and the men and women who state otherwise disqualify themselves as true New Testament scholars.

See Also:

• The Historical Documentation For Jesus’ Death And Resurrection
• Alleged Textual Variants Of The New Testament Do Not Change The Narrative
• Why The New Testament Is a Valid Historical Narrative
• The Secular Record of History, Proves That Jesus Rose From The Dead
• The Darkness at Noon During Jesus Crucifixion is Confirmed by Secular Historians
• The Historical Record of Jesus Life from Secular Sources
• How Were The Disciples Able To Remember And Write All That Jesus Said And Did?

NOTES:

[1] Olson, Roger E. (1999), The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, ISBN 978-0-8308-1505-0, Page 101.

[2] Origen. The Complete Works of Origen (8 Books): Cross-Linked to the Bible (Kindle Location 6339). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.

[3] Origen. The Complete Works of Origen (8 Books): Cross-Linked to the Bible (Kindle Locations 6344-6347). Amazon.com. Kindle Edition.

Categories: Agnostics and Skeptics, Archeological Confirmation, Atheists, Claims of Interpolation, Empirical Evidence for the Resurrection, Historical Validity of the New Testament, Jesus confirmed by secular sources, Josephus as a credible witness, Literary authenticity of the New Testament, Messianic Prophecies, Origin of the four Gospels, Reliability of the Bible, Resurrection Proven by Secular Sources, Robert Clifton Robinson, Tacitus as a credible witness, The Four Gospels, The Historical Jesus, The Importance of the Bible, The Miracles of Jesus, The Resurrection

Tags: 100 Proofs of Jesus From Non Biblical Sources, Celsus, Contra Celsum, Evidence the Resurrection of Jesus is genuine, Reliability of the New Testament, The Historical Jesus, The New Testament as a Historical Document