The Resurrection of Jesus Christ Is a Historical Fact

Molly Worthen is an associate professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She received her BA and PhD from Yale University. 

Lorian Foote, Patricia & Bookman Peters Professor of History at Texas A&M, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma.  

This is a transcript of a talk entitled How a History Professor Changed Her Mind About the Resurrection

Note: This has been slightly edited [ums, ahs, you knows, double words deleted] and links and emphasis added. 

Lorian Foote: So what were kind of the key realizations that you had that that started to to make you think that the resurrection was possible and plausible,

Molly Worthen: The book that was most important for me was N.T. Wright's big book on the resurrection although I had to... it is even for a historian it's really a slog.

So I would constantly have to kind of pause and read a chapter that Tim Keller has in his book Reason for God on the resurrection where he sort of summarizes N.T. Wright's whole argument. So I could remind myself of the forest for the trees. That book is a is a very elaborate kind of layer after layer exploration of the views of the resurrection, and the afterlife, both in the Greco-Roman Pagan context in the first century and the spectrum of Jewish views, and he makes clear that whatever Jesus's disciples were hoping would happen, expecting would happen the end of the gospel story and the resurrection appearances are so far outside the cultural lanes, the sort of range of cultural imaginative options, that one has to really take seriously the possibility that they they did not confect these stories to support their beliefs but rather they develop these beliefs to explain unbelievable things that actually happened.

And part of the power of N.T. Wright's book is that, for me, is that it is such a slog and that there's just this cumulative effect of the depth of detail that he explores that I found really compelling. I guess I had in the past accepted what I now think of as fairly lazy analogies between Jesus and other self-declared messiahs**, other stories of gods, you know, descending and rising again to heaven. And once Wright and other scholars s**ubjected these comparisons for me to more scrupulous analysis I was persuaded that they weren't very good comparisons at all and that, the Jesus case is just incredibly strange.

And this drove me into, I think a new relationship with the gospels. I was reading the gospels over and over, you know, and having a reaction, I'm not, I'm still waiting for the mystical experience that I thought I would get, you know, at some point and nothing like that; the closest I have gotten to that is the experience of seeing for the first time the sheer strangeness of the things Jesus does his interactions with people especially the accounts of healing and the strange details, the way every healing is a little bit different. Jesus meets each person on their own terms and as much as I hate, I think I had a real, sort of allergic reaction to that evangelical theme of, "imagine yourself in the scriptures, put yourself in, in the place of these people", I did start to get tugged into the stories a little bit.

I also, I mean, there's a way in which when you spend a lot of time reading primary sources, you just develop a sort of sixth sense for what a source is, what category it belongs in. And I think this is one change that's happened in the New Testament scholarship.

So, you know following, the famous German scholar, Rudolf Bultmann in the early 20th century there was, I think, a move toward talking about the Gospels really in the category of Mythology. But the consensus has shifted and I think this is fair to say even of non-believing historians. That the appropriate genre for them is really more, Greco-Roman biography, but even then if you go and you read Plutarch’s Parallel Lives or you read, say Philistratus's biography of Apollonius of Tiana who was a traveling, Greek sort of magician, healer, who's in the first century sometimes compared to Jesus, the character of those texts, is so different.

So, the character of those texts is they're very polished. They're deeply embroidered, that the authors have a real commitment to careful theme setting. There is a brutal roughness to the Gospels. Especially Mark. Mark, I'd always kind of dismissed Mark because, like, the short one was sort of boring, least theological, Mark was the one that wrestled me to the ground and it is the grittiness, the sense that this is not, honestly, it is not a great work of literature, it is a desperate author, just trying to get on paper this bananas stuff, that this author was much closer to, than I had realized. And I became persuaded by the work of people ike Richard Bauckham was another one of these Anglicans, who can kind of speak to secular American snobs, that it's not that we need to distinguish between some sort of vague idea of oral tradition passing from community, to community and getting garbled along the way and oral history. And that there are, there are clues in the text that create a, not an airtight, but an awfully interesting and persuasive case that the Gospel authors were quite close to the events they were describing and, and possibly should be dated earlier than I had kind of come to believe. And so all of that, I mean, this was so imoprtant, I did not have to treat the Gospels as inerrant. All I had to start to do was to treat them with the same methods and the same kind of respect and questions as I would treat other historical sources. But for that to be possible, for me, they had to be sort of de-familiarized.

Lorian Foote: Interesting. Yeah, you know it's as a professional historian what you described is, how I feel about the Gospels. Because when I bring the techniques that we have in our profession to them, you know, I was telling Molly earlier, it drives me crazy. When I just hear somebody casually say, "well there's so many things that don't exactly match across the four Gospels. And so that's why it shows that that didn't really happen" and I'm like, okay. So then clearly we don't know that anything in history happened because as historians we know, when there's accounts of events....

So like I'm a civil war historian, there is not a single newspaper article and a single eyewitness to the Battle of Gettysburg that agree on the details of what happened at the battle. None of us questioned the battle we have to piece together a rough estimation of what we think happened based on accounts that don't add up.

And so to me I think as a historian I came to some things on my own that scholars, who are much better than me at the New Testament, come to do as part of their apologetics. But it was just striking to me that, in one gospel that there's two thieves are both making both making fun of Jesus and another gospel, one of them eventually turns to him, and that's what I witnessed. They both have on either side of Jesus, different witnesses are remembering different things that they saw that to me, made it more plausible and made it read as you said more like a true attempt to write a biography than a formalized document and and little things like the gospels record that women were first there.

And that women are there and women are the key eyewitnesses in a culture that discounts the testimony of women. As a historian when I would read a document like that, I would say, okay now, wait a minute, why are they having, if they're wanting to convince people of something that isn't true, would they put these witnesses, as their first class. Look, these women were the witnesses, so just lots of questions, the way that I methodologically go through and ask questions of the source. If I do the same thing to the gospels, I've always found them to be very compelling as historical documents

Molly Worthen: And the women, their role is one part of the broader absolute humiliating scandal of the whole end of the gospels. And this is what N.T. Wright's picture of Jewish theology and culture, really drove home to me in a way that I just had not assimilated before that no other movement that had believed in a self-declared Messiah had then seen that Messiah killed and declared him God. I mean, you could run away, right? Because the whole idea of the role of the Messiah in Jewish thought, was that this would be the individual who would lead Israel to worldly victory, and then Resurrection would kind of follow in the in for everybody, in the context of that victory.

And so I think this helped me see how I thought as a historian, it always been really an important part of my self-understanding that I approached people in the past with respect and a sense of humility.

But I think that there was a way in which that first task, that we're called to as historians to just really respect the chasm between them and me. It can easily slide into a kind of condescension. Because you you forget, you in your quest to distance yourself from your subjects, you can dehumanize them a little bit and maybe reduce the complexity of their worldviews.

So worldviews in the first century were, of course, very different from ours, but no less complicated. And so there were clear ideas for these people about what was and was not possible. And they were not, they were not fools. Who would just sort of believe any crazy thing, They were clear on on dead people, remaining dead, right?

And I think I had just not fully grappled with the radicalism of the Gospel claims in the first century, forget about now for me, the big hurdle and I think this is true of many scholars who spend their careers on this subject. If you don't already allow for the possibility of an open universe. If you are committed to an anti-supernaturalist understanding of reality than any possible explanation of the empty tomb and Jesus's appearances to his followers is preferable to the Christian explanation, no matter how Baroque and elaborate and I had to come to grips with my own deep anti-super-naturalist bias, I could always sort of thought of myself as open to the claims of Christianity.

But I had just, mean, my whole existence was in this one epistemological groove and this one kind of lane of approach and there are good reasons why in the modern research university in a secular university certain questions are just ones we set aside and we focus on other questions. But there's a way in which in doing that one can just get so used to setting aside those questions that you forget about the presuppositions that are involved in ruling those questions out and you can begin to think in the subconscious way that those questions are just foolish questions. Because your tools that you use in your teaching and research are not aimed directly at them.

I think also, I had a kind of "all or nothing" view of the historical method. If we define the historical method as drawing our ability to draw analogies between our own experience of cause and effect in our own life and the way cause and effect works in the past.

And we Define a miracle as Divine intervention Interruption In the normal order, normal relationship between cause and effect. Then yes, it's true that at the sort of Singularity of the miracle, the historical, method fails. So you can't prove as you couldn't a lab or or even you know, to the extent that that historians can prove things, you can't prove the resurrection.

However, there's all sorts of context. And you can bring the historical method to bear and all kinds of really fruitful ways to the textual record, the archaeological record. You don't have to make the perfect the enemy of the good. And if you're willing to suspend your disbelief in the Supernatural, then then you can be, you can begin to investigate the historical context of Christians claims about the empty tomb and the appearances of Christ that then get you to the point where you are, you're still faced with a leap of faith, but it's no longer a wild leap in the dark; it's a well-researched, reasonable leap. And then you start to realize that you were always making a bit of a leap and you just weren't acknowledging it. This was from true for me, anyway, that I had paid, I think lip service to the idea that, yes, as a secular agnostic person I had unproofable presuppositions because we all do, no view from nowhere blah, blah, blah.

But I had never. I'd never truly like looked that in the face and and and wrestled with it.

[End of Talk]

Key take aways:

1) If we treat the Gospels as we do other ancient documents they are clearly historical and reliable.

2) Accounts that "don't add up" are common in historical documents

3) In the first century people were not fools and knew that dead people stayed dead. so to conclude, even from the evidence, that Jesus rose was radical.

4) It's only a bias for an anti-supernaturalist understanding of reality that is the stumbling block for accepting the ressurection of Jesus Christ as a historocal fact.

Two agreed upon historical facts

1) We know that Jesus died a torturous death by crucifixion; this is attested to in every gospel, but it is also confirmed by several non-Christian sources. - Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, and the Jewish Talmud.

2) The empty tomb. Something happened to the body. Both the Jewish and Roman authorities had plenty of motivation to produce a body, bring it to downtown Jerusalem and dump it on the street. Especially after His post-mortem appearances and empty tomb were first publicly proclaimed in Jerusalem. This is ezpecially true since the Jewish authorities asked the Romans to guard the tomb. 

The alternative explanations...

The Swoon Theory does not take seriously what we know about the scourging and torture associated with crucifixion. A nearly dead man, in need of serious medical attention, could hardly serve as the foundation for the disciples’ belief in the resurrection, and that he was a conqueror of death and the grave.

Second, Roman soldiers were professional executioners, and knew everything about the torture and crucifixion of people, making this theory highly improbable.

Third, are we to think that the Jewish and Roman authorities sealed and guarded the tomb without verifying the Jesus was dead in it? Another highly improbable assumption.

The disciples stole the body - this was the charge by Jewish authorities; Jesus’ followers stole the body unbeknownst to anyone and lied about the resurrection appearances.

First, this theory does not explain why the disciples would invent women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb - the were not considered to be reliable witnesses. This is not the way one gets a conspiracy theory off the ground.

Second, this also doesn’t explain how the disciples actually stole the body that was 1) sealed by a heavy stone, and 2) guarded by Romans.

Third, there was no expectation by first century Jews of a suffering-servant Messiah who would be shamefully executed by Gentiles as a criminal only to rise again bodily before the final resurrection at the end of time: “As Wright nicely puts it, if your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you either went home or else you got yourself a new Messiah. But the idea of stealing Jesus’ corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of the disciples.” [Craig (citing N.T. Wright), Reasonable Faith, p372.]

Fourth, this theory cannot account for the conversion of skeptics like Paul, a devout Jew and persecutor of Christians, who also testified to having seen the risen Lord and willing suffered and died for his belief in the resurrection.

Every source we have indicates that the practice in Israel, especially in the vicinity of Jerusalem, in peacetime, was to bury the executed before nightfall. This was a practice that Roman authority permitted. source  This gave the disciple little time to come up with a "steal the body" plot, especially given their emotional state. 

The disciples experienced hallucinations.

First, the testimony of Paul along with the Gospel writers is that the appearances of Jesus were physical, bodily appearances. In fact, this is the unanimous agreement of the Gospels.

Second, hallucinations are private experiences as opposed to group experiences. Therefore, hallucinations cannot explain the group appearances attested to in 1 Cor. 15, the Gospel narratives, and the book of Acts.

Finally, hallucinations cannot explain such facts as the empty tomb, why the Roman and Jewish authorities didn't produce the body, and the conversions of skeptics like Paul

The only real obstacle to resurrection as a plausible explanation is an anti-supernatural bias. But as I've argued the belief that nature is all that exists is logically self-refuting and thus cannot be true if reason, critical thinking, and knowledge are part of our reality

Objection A - Right in that last bit she says that "you can't prove the resurrection"!

Reply: That is in the context of the historical method which, like the scientific method, assumes an unproofable presupposition, i.e. an anti-super-naturalist bias. So please provide your proof or argument that "physical only view of the reality" is correct.

We have good reasons to think that "physical only view of the reality" is logically incoherent

I have had many atheists and critics say that they do not ascribe to a "physical only view of the reality"; so what then given the above is the issue with the conclusion that the ressurection of Jesus Christ as a historical fact?

Objection B - If we treat the Gospels as we treat every other historical document, then we could never conclude that an actual resurrection occurred as a historical event.

This is the thing that Christian apologists are never honest about: historians, scholars, and us skeptics and atheists don't accept the resurrection story not because we aren't giving it a fair chance; it's because WE are the ones treating the Gospels the exact same as every other historical text that exists.

Reply: Yes, you are using the same anti-supernatural bias that you look at everything. But that lens is faulty. Thus, I am under no obligation to view reality through your faulty lens especially when this unsupported assumption that has been pointed out time and again, with no defense ever offered for it.  This is even touched on in the OP

Objection C - Why is the "best explanation" here something that we know to be impossible and not "people lied?"

Reply: First it’s only "impossible" if one assumes Philosophical Naturalism, but we have good reasons to think that is a false idea. Secondly, it's not part of the historical method to assume that the writer of a document lied or the poeple quoted in the text lied; that would have to be proven.

Objection D They got the wrong tomb. Josephus said he buried the body and didn't.

Reply: Are we to believe that the Jewish and Roman authorities, the latter posting a gaurd at behest of the former, wouldn't have checked to see that the body was there prior?

Objection E - You need to reproduce your proof

Reply: We do not prove historical events by reprodcuing them. Do we prove World War 2 by "reproducing" the proof? No. 

Obkection F -  The writers consisting of what is now called the new testament constructed a resurrection account based on various old testament expectations.  Paul, undeniably preached a Jesus pulled from Old testament scripture and practiced Judaic Pesher

Reply: Why then didn't the Jewish or Roman authorities dump the body Jesus in the town square while somebody was preching the jesus has rose from the dead? That's why they put guards on the tomb. to prevent these stories from happening. Did they just forget? Was it suddenly not important to them? Or, most likely, they didn't have the body...

Related post 

Was The Resurrection of Jesus Christ a Mythological Development?

The resurrection of Jesus is not historical - a rebuttal

Skepticism is Not Critical Thinking

Skepticism as defined by Webster's as:

1) an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity, either in general or toward a particular object

2) a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

3) doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)

Critical thinking is the act or practice of careful goal-directed thinking (i.e applying reason and questioning assumptions) to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases, etc. The 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking.

Skepticism is just a small part of the critical thinking process, the beginning part.  

The problem with Skepticism is that we know almost nothing with certainty, save a few mathematical or logical proofs almost everything we know is via The Inference to the Best Explanation. Since almost everything is 1) not known with certainty and 2) our knowledge of anything can change with better data or better explanations than skeptical "doubting" is a very low intellectual bar.  

Skeptics make the mistake of not recognizing that skepticism, a specific attitude within critical thinking, is NOT the entire process. 

Skeptics need to get into the intellectual mainstream, offer better explanations of the data, reasons why something is better understood as false rather than true; just relying on "I don't know" when in an intellectual corner; it's intellectually weak out.   

Do Late Accounts and No Eyewitnesses Justify Doubting The Historical Authenticity of People & Events?

Is one justified in rejecting the historicity of the life of Jesus if there are no eyewitnesses to Him and His life, and the accounts are decades after He lived? Is this the standard that historians use? Or is it a double standard?

 
The Strange Case of Hieronymus of Cardia

Hieronymus [356–323 BC] is not a household name, but among historians he’s known for several things. He was an eyewitness to the campaigns of Alexander the Great, but he lived to the age of 104 — long enough to record the first battle between a Roman army and a Hellenistic kingdom. He was a friend and confidant of kings and commanders during the chaotic aftermath of Alexander the Great’s death. He was a military governor in Greece. Furthermore, he managed the asphalt industry on the Dead Sea.

Above all, he is regarded as a key source for many of the most of the history of the years 320–270 BCE. He’s also a prime authority for Plutarch’s famous biographies of Eumenes, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and Pyrrhus. In fact, he’s often cited as the first Greek to write about the rise of Rome.

On the other hand, Dionysius Halicarnassus — writing during the reign of Augustus — called him “a historian no one bothers to finish.” He’s everywhere without being personally a key historical figure.

However:

The bit about him being 104 at the age of his death comes from another author whose work is also lost: Agatharcides of Cnidus who lived roughly sometime in the later 2d century BC — born probably three generations after Hieronymus’ death. We know he discussed Hieronymus because he, in turn, is quoted by Lucian of Samosata (~ 125–180 CE) — about 300 years after Agatharcides and over 400 from Hieronymus.

The oldest surviving work that refers to Hieronymus by name is that of “a certain person named Moschion” who probably would have lived a bit before Agatharcides, writing in Sicily — 750 miles or more from where Hieronymus lived and worked and maybe 75 years after his death. The only thing we know about Moschion is the handful of his pages quoted by Athenaeus, about 450 years after Hieronymus.

There’s no reference to Hieronymus in any Latin source, despite his reputation as an early reporter of Rome. The reference to him being the first Greek to write about Rome comes from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing about 250 years after Hieronymus’ death.

Key biographical details — his relationship with Eumenes, his work for the Antigonid dynasty, and his governorship — only show up in Plutarch, 350 years after Hieronymus’ day.

The history for which he is famous is lost; it exists only in paraphrases or name-checks by later writers. Although there are several facts attributed to him, there is no verbatim quote of anything the wrote. It’s a commonplace among historians that Hieronymus is the main source for much of what is interesting and detailed in the work of Diodorus of Sicily, who wrote 200 years or more after Hieronymus’ death.

Diodorus tends to be somewhat wordy and diffuse, but when he covers the age of Hieronymus he suddenly becomes more detail oriented, has interesting anecdotes, and provides reasonable numbers; this is all assumed to come from Hieronymus. However, although Diodorus does refer to Hieronymus (for example, he tells the story of Diodorus’ job in the asphalt bureau in book 19) he never explicitly quotes him. The common assumption is that big chunks of books 18–20 are basically plagiarized from Hieronymus — but naturally, Diodorus doesn’t tell us this himself.

He’s not quoted by Polybius, whose account overlapped with events he wrote about. His most industrious recyclers are Diodorus and Dionysius during the transition from Roman republic to Roman empire (~200 - 250 years), and then Appian and Plutarch in the second century CE (~ 350 - 400 years).

It’s worth pointing out that not only is he not attested very close to his own lifetime — neither are many of the sources which refer to him. Agatharcides for example has no contemporary mentions — he’s cited by Diodorus, and by early Roman-era writers but none closer to him than a couple of generations.

Diodorus, too, is not referred to by his contemporaries — we have to guess when he died from the contents of his book, which does not refer to any event later than around 32 BC. At least his book survives him — about a third of it, anyway. The last complete copy was destroyed during the Turkish sack of Constantinople. There is no evidence for him that does not come from his own writings, and the oldest explicit quotation from him is from Athenaeus in the latter half of the second century CE, over 200 years from his own time.

Of the people mentioned in this piece by name Plutarch, Appian, Athenaeus, and — of course — emperor Augustus are attested by contemporary sources and known by any other means than their own writings. Only Augustus and Plutarch are known from physical objects (the latter from a single inscription). There is an inscription from Diodorus’ hometown in the name of a Diodorus; we have no way of knowing if it’s the same Diodorus and it offers no clue to the date.

This is how a fairly famous person — a widely cited author, diplomat, and friend of kings — fares in the sources. Hieronymus of Cardia is a figure who is completely familiar to ancient historians; if anything they are often over-eager to spot traces of him — he is almost universally assumed to be the source of most of the interesting and detailed bits of Diodorus and Dionysius in the the era of Alexander’s successors. He routinely shows up in any discussion of the early historiography of Rome.

But he does not pass the contemporary mention test by a country mile. [Source]

The implication: 

Therre are no eyewitness account for the life of Hieronymus of Cardia and no contemporary accounts of him either, yet historians have no doubt or minimal doubt that he existed.

But maybe is just an outlier, surely this is just an anomaly, an exception, an oddity.... 


What about other well known people from history, they certainly are much more documented than people from Bible, right?

Spartacus 103–71 BC

The story of a slave turned gladiator turned revolutionary has been told and retold many times in media. Although a well-known and much-admired historical figure, Spartacus does **not** actually have **any** surviving contemporary records of his life. His enduring fame is in part due to the heroic visage crafted by a priestess of Dionysus, who was also his lover.

The story is mentioned in Plutarch’s biography of Crassus, the wealthy Roman who ultimately put down the uprising led by Spartacus. Parallel Lives was a collection of 48 biographies of prominent historical figures written by the Greek historian in the **second century AD**. Another major source of information about Spartacus came from another Greek, Appian, **writing around a century after the events**.


Hannibal born in 247 B.C

Despite how well-known his great deeds as a general are, there are **no** surviving firsthand accounts of Hannibal - or indeed Carthage at all. The closest thing to a primary source for the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage is the account written by the Greek historian Polybius around **a century later**

The historian was alive for the third and final Punic conflict and spoke to survivors of the second war, but obviously did **not** meet Hannibal himself.

Another major ancient source, which drew on other works from the time that are now lost, was by the Roman historian Livy. The History of Rome was **written in the first century** AD, but only part of the 142-book collection remains. While not considered as objective as Polybius and far removed from the events, Livy’s work fills in a lot of the gaps.

Alexander the Great 356 - 323 BC

At its peak, his empire stretched from the Balkans to the Indus River. Countless pages have been written of his deeds, but almost all were done **long after** his was dead

Our only knowledge comes from the much later works that drew on those long-lost pages. Perhaps the most valuable of all was the tome written by his general Ptolemy, who would later found his own great empire. One of the very few written records that survive from Alexander’s time is an incredibly brief mention of his passing in a small clay tablet of Babylonian astronomical reports.

William Wallace 1270 - 1305 AD

The screenplay for the 1995 film Braveheart occasionally drew upon a poem written by a monk known as Blind Harry in the 15th century.

Because Harry's romanticized account was penned more than **150 years** after the Scottish hero was tried and executed at the behest of Edward I, it’s not exactly going to be a reliable telling of the tale. One of the few contemporary records comes from a **single** English chronicle that doesn’t try to be objective: *…a certain Scot, by name William Wallace, an outcast from pity, a robber, a sacrilegious man, an incendiary and a homicide, a man more cruel than the cruelty of Herod, and more insane than the fury of Nero…*

The passage details an unflattering description of the Scottish defeat at Falkirk in 1298, where Wallace apparently fled the scene before being captured. The time between the loss and his later apprehension was spent in mainland Europe, attempting to raise support for his cause. We know this because one of only **two** surviving documents personally attached to Wallace is a letter written on his behalf by the King of France to the Pope

Attila the Hun (c. 406-453 AD) was one of late antiquity’s most notorious figures, a brutal conqueror who ransacked the weakened Roman Empire.

Little is actually known of the Huns, as they left little evidence behind, and the few contemporary accounts that remain are from sources not disposed to view them favorably. The surviving fragments of a history of Rome written by Ammianus Marcellinus depict a backward, savage people of unknown origin.

As for Attila himself, much of his early life is the subject of speculation from later authors. Jordanes, a **6th-century** Eastern Roman historian, wrote a second hand account as he drew upon the work of Priscus, a fellow Eastern Roman who actually met Attila. Unfortunately, only a few scraps of Priscus’s work remain.

So it seems that historians have no problem in taking as historical, people and events are much less evidence than what the Bible contains.

If anyone uses the "The gospels are not eyewitness accounts" argument to dismiss the Gospels as history, commits the double standard logical fallacy 

Bart Erhman - [He is a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity - he is an atheist/agnostic
Jesus existed. Source for the quotes below]

Jesus is the best attested Palestinian Jew of the first century if we look only at external evidence. Josephus is better attested because we have his own writings. I am also not including Paul because I’m talking only about Jews from Palestine; he was from the Diaspora.

We have four narrative accounts of Jesus’ life and death, written by different people at different times and in different places, based on numerous sources that no longer survive. Jesus was not invented by Mark. He was also known to Matthew, Luke, and John, and to the sources which they used (Q, M, L, and the various sources of John). All of this was within the first century.

This is not to mention sources from outside the New Testament that know that Jesus was a historical figure – for example, 1 Clement and the documents that make up the Didache. Or — need I say it? – every other author of the New Testament (there are sixteen NT authors altogether, so twelve who did not write Gospels), none of whom knew any of the Gospels (except for the author of 1, 2, and 3 John who may have known the fourth Gospel).

By my count that’s something like twenty-five authors, not counting the authors of the sources (another six or seven) on which the Gospels were based (and the sources on which the book of Acts was based, which were different again).

If there had been one source of Christian antiquity that mentioned a historical Jesus (e.g., Mark) and everyone else was based on what that source had to say, then possibly you could argue that this person made Jesus up and everyone else simply took the ball and ran with it.

But how can you make a convincing case if we’re talking about thirty or so independent sources that know there was a man Jesus? These sources are not all living in the same village someplace so they are egging each other on. They didn’t compare notes. They are independent of one another and are scattered throughout the Mediterranean. They each have heard about the man Jesus from their own sources of information, which heard about him from their own sources of information.

That must mean that there were hundreds of people at the least who were talking about the man Jesus. One of them was the apostle Paul, who was talking about Jesus by at least the year 32 CE, that is, two years after the date of Jesus’ death.

Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John. That’s more or less a death knell for the Mythicist position, as some of them admit. .... Here I am simply stressing that the Gospel traditions themselves provide clear evidence that Jesus was being talked about just a few years after his life in Roman Palestine.

There is more. Good evidence shows that some of the Gospel accounts clearly go back to traditions about Jesus in circulation, originally, in Aramaic, the language of Roman Palestine, where Jesus himself lived. One piece of evidence is that Aramaic words occasionally appear in stories about Jesus, often at the climactic moment. This happens in a variety of stories from a variety of sources. For example, In Mark 5 Jesus raises the daughter of a man named Jairus from the dead. When he comes into her room and raises her, he says to her “Talitha cumi.” The author of Mark translates for us: “Little girl, arise.”

Why would the author leave the key sentence in Aramaic? If you have ever had bi-lingual friends who assume you too know their second language and have heard them tell a joke about something that happened in the other country, you will know that sometimes they give the punch line in the other language, even though the lead up to the line is in English. That’s because often the punch line packs a better punch than the original.

This story about Jairus’s daughter, then, was originally told in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek, with the key line left in the original. So too with several stories in a completely different Gospel, the Gospel of John. It happens three times in just 1:35-42. This is a story that circulated in Aramaic-speaking Palestine, the homeland of Jesus and his disciples.

The other reason for knowing that a tradition was originally in Aramaic is because it makes better sense when translated *back* into Aramaic than it does in Greek.

My favorite illustration of this is Jesus’ famous saying: “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). The context: Jesus’ disciples have been eating grain from a field on the Sabbath day; the Pharisees object, and Jesus explains that it is permissible to meet human needs on the Sabbath. Then his clever one-liner.

But the one-liner doesn’t make sense. Why would the Son of Man (Jesus) be Lord of the Sabbath BECAUSE Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around? In other words, when he says “therefore” the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath, what is the “therefore” there for?

The logic doesn’t work in Greek (or English). But it would work in Aramaic. That’s because in Aramaic the word for “man” and the word for “son of man” are the same word: “Bar enash” (could be translated either way). And so what Jesus said was: “Sabbath was made for bar enash, not bar enash for the Sabbath; therefore bar enash is lord of the Sabbath.” Now it makes sense. The saying was originally transmitted in Aramaic, and when translated into Greek, the translator decided to make the final statement about Jesus, not about humans.

Christianity did not make a big impact on Aramaic-speaking Palestine. The vast majority of Jews in the homeland did not accept Christianity or want anything to do with it. There were not thousands of storytellers there passing on Christian traditions. There were some, of course, especially in Jerusalem.

But the fact that these stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission. You cannot argue that Jesus was made up by some Greek-speaking Christian after Paul’s letters, 

Short story: we are not talking about a Bart Ehrman Jesus figure invented in the year 60. There was widespread information about Jesus from the years after his death. Otherwise, you can’t explain all the literary evidence (dozens of independent sources), some of it based on Aramaic traditions of Jesus’ homeland.

Objection A  - But Jesus is said to be God and rose from the dead. That's a major difference between all these other historical figures

Reply: So, your real objection has to do with the metaphysical implications of saying the Jesus rose from the dead, not the hidtorical nature of the account. That is beyond the scope of this argument.

However, I invite you to read why Philosophical Naturalism [the idea that only the physical exists] is logically self-refuting and why there is evidence for God

Objection B - The eyewitness stuff is important with the Gospels because there is a massive difference between 'I lived with Jesus for a few weeks after he died' and 'I heard others lived with Jesus for a few weeks after he died.

Reply: But the "eyewitness stuff" is apparently not impoertant - see nthe above for how many people/events are considered historical sans eyewitness account. The take Luke, for example, said the he investigated everything from the beginning and wrote an orderly account. This sems to be in line with what other ancient historians did, like Herodotus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian - There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus of the Bible in ancient non-Christian sources

Annihilationism and Revelation 20

Why Annihilationism is Wrong

Annihilationism the belief that after the Last Judgment, all damned humans and fallen angels including Satan will be totally destroyed, rather than made to suffer for eternity in hell after death [i.e. Eternal Conscious Torment or ECT]. Alternatively, the Devil, Beast, and False Prophet will suffer ECT while the rest of the wicked will cease to exist, 

I do not think that Annihilationism has a Biblical basis.

I don't think most verses used for Annihilationism or ECT are decisive, except for Rev 20:10-15

The key verse - 

10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. 

Four facts we can glean from this:

1) The devil was thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast and the false prophet, [vs 10]

2) where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever [vs 10]

3) The lake of fire is the second death. [vs 14]

4) Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was also thrown into the lake of fire. [vs 15]

What can we infer:

First, John calls "suffering day and night forever" in the lake of fire, "second death". That’s where those in verse 14 go; implying they suffer the same fate.

Secondly, after differentiating between 1st and 2nd death, John makes no distinction between 2nd death and this any other "alternate death" for the wicked in the lake of fire.  Since he does not, then this is good evidence that the all wicked suffer the second death, ECT

Other 2nd death passages:

Revelation 21:8: “The cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

This seems to indicate that all unbelievers with suffer the 2nd death

Revelation 2:11: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the *second death**.”

Confer overcomers here with 1 John 5:4 - For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith.

Revelation 20:6 “Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.”

Words/Verses/Passages Typically Used For Annihilationism

Isaiah 66:24 - “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

Isaiah 66:24 is a snapshot of hell, meaning the second death; a symbol, illustrating what final judgement is like. If it's not that, then it can't be the final state of the wicked, which is what we're discussing. So what does that snapshot show? Ruin devastation destruction, not "ceasing to exist"; the corpses have not ceased to exist. As a counterpoint, corpses feel not pain, thus this isn't teaching ECT.

Additionally, the last part of Isaiah 66:24 "and they will be a horror to all mankind". How is the non-existence of the wicked a horror to all mankind? If Isaiah is a snapshot of the final state of the wicked, and you think that is annihilationism, why is it a portrait of dead bodies, worms, fire?

And look at the beginning of Isaiah 66:24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies"; how does one look at that which has "ceased to exist"?

“Destruction” or “perish” (Greek: apoleia or olethros Matt 7:13; John 3:16; 17:12; Acts 8:20; Rom 9:22-23; Phil 1:28; 3:19; 2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 6:9; Heb 10:39; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 Thess 5:3; 2 Thess 1:9; 1 Tim 6:9).

apóleia from Strong's apóleia: destruction, loss Definition: destruction, loss Usage: destruction, ruin, loss, perishing; eternal ruin.   684 apṓleia (from 622 /apóllymi, "cut off") – destruction, causing someone (something) to be completely severed – cut off (entirely) from what could or should have been. (Note the force of the prefix, apo.) See 622 (apollymi).

 /apṓleia ("perdition") does not imply "annihilation" (see the meaning of the root-verb, 622 /apóllymi, "cut off") but instead "loss of well-being" rather than being (Vine's Expository Dictionary, 165; cf. Jn 11:50; Ac 5:37; 1 Cor 10:9-10; Jude 11).\

olethros from Strong's olethros: destruction, death Definition: destruction, death Usage: ruin, doom, destruction, death.  3639 ólethros (from ollymi/"destroy") – properly, ruination with its full, destructive results (LS). 3639 /ólethros ("ruination") however does not imply "extinction" (annihilation). Rather it emphasizes the consequent loss that goes with the complete "undoing."

“Death” (Greek: thanatos or apothnesko Rom 1:32; 6:21; 7:5; 8:6; 1 Cor 15:21-22; 15:56; 2 Cor 2:16; 7:10; James 1:15; 5:20; 1 John 5:16; Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8)

thanatos from Strong's Definition: to put to death Usage: I put to death, subdue; pass: I am in danger of death, am dead to, am rid of, am parted from.

apothnesko from Strong's Definition: to die Usage: I am dying, am about to die, wither, decay.


“End” (Greek: telos Rom 6:21-22; 2 Cor 11:15; Phil 3:19; 1 Pet 4:17)

telos from Strong's Definition: having reached its end, complete, perfect Usage: perfect, (a) complete in all its parts, (b) full grown, of full age, (c) specially of the completeness of Christian character.


“Disintegration/corruption” (phthora) (Gal 6:8; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:12).

phthora from Strong's Definition: destruction, corruption Usage: corruption, destruction, decay, rottenness, decomposition.


burned up chaff, trees, weeds, branches (Matt 3:12; 7:19; 13:40; John 15:6).

Strong's: 2618 Transliterated: katakausei Root: κατακαίω 1) to burn up, consume by fire

a destroyed house, discarded fish, uprooted plant, chopped down tree (Matt 7:27; 13:48; 15:13; Luke 13:7)

None of these equal cease to existthe Day of Judgment is compared to OT examples of the flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s wife turned into salt (Luke 17:27, 29, 32).
None of these equal "cease to exist"

wicked compared to ground up powder or cut to pieces (Matt 21:41, 44; 24:51).

Ground up powder or cut to pieces does not equal cease to exist

**Not one verse above says "cease to exist".**


Another defense: A plain reading of those texts suggest finality, or annihilation 

There are two crucial problems with a literalist or "plain sense" approach to the text.
.
The first problem is that in a plain sense approach, we most often assume our own frame of reference for the text and assume that what makes sense to us from our own cultural, social, religious, or emotional context is what the text itself means to say.

The second problem is that a "plain sense" reading often does not or cannot see features of the text like irony, word play, metaphorical writing, multilevel symbols, or other much more subtle features of communication that go far beyond, or sometimes in direct contrast to, what seems to be the "plain" meaning.


Related posts:

Seven Arguments that show that Universalism is a false doctrine

Degrees of Punishment in Hell

Jesus Said More about Hell Than Anyone in the Bible

The Engineering Problem in Evolution

The Engineering problem

Stephen J Gould [one of the two scientists behind punctuated evolution] said in his book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory": I recognize that we know no mechanism for the origin of organismal features other than conventional natural selection at the organismic level [pg 710]

Here's a 20-min vid on how punctuated equilibrium doesn't solve the problem

Let's illustrate one of the difficulties with the fish to amphibian transition. There had to be changes from:

1) obtaining oxygen from water to directly from the air,

2) change from permeable scales to impermeable skin,

3) ventral, anal, and tail fins would have to go from steering to a) weight-bearing and b) to providing locomotion,

4) a two chambered, one loop heart system would have to transform into a three chambered, two loop heart.

And all of these changes had to happen 

1) in concert, 

2) on a molecular level and 

3) while that species remained the fittest for its environment. The genetic code had to change in multiple proteins throughout multiple systems within the fish, all at basically the same time.

For example, the Cambrian explosion, the unparalleled emergence of organisms between 541 million and approximately 530 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Period. The event was characterized by the appearance of many of the major phyla (between 20 and 35) that make up modern animal life.

As I said gradualism seemed plausible if there were 100's of millions of years for a system of hit or miss chance, but there is not; take that element away, as Punctuated Equilibrium and the Cambrian explosion shows, then design [a purposeful, intentional, guided process with a goal in mind] is the much more likely candidate than a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal.

This is part of a larger argument that can be found here

The DNA Problem

There are dozens of DNA based micromachines in our bodies like the ATP Synthase which is a dual pump motor. The ATP Synthase has dozens of different parts; each is a protein which is formed from long strings of amino acids – 300 to 2,000 base pairs – which must be in a particular order, so they will fold correctly to perform a certain function.

But are there enough events since the universe formed to account for the ATP Synthase?

Let's do the math to calculate the total possible events since the Big Bang. 

If every particle in the observable universe [1 × 10 to the 90th power] was an event that occurred every Planck second [5.4 × 10 to the 44th power] since the beginning of the universe [4.32 × 10 to the 17th power - in seconds] there would be a max of  2.3328x10^152 events since the beginning of the universe.

A single average sized protein of 150 amino acids would take 7.2x10^195 to form via an unguided, purposeless, goalless process. That's more the amount of events in the entire history of the universe.

Also, there are vastly more ways of arranging nucleotide bases that result in non-functional sequences of DNA, and vastly more ways of arranging amino acids that result in non-functional amino-acid chains, than there are corresponding functional genes or proteins. One recent experimentally derived estimate places that ratio—the size of the haystack in relation to the needle—at 10^77 non-functional sequences for every functional gene or protein.

And we have many, many different kinds of these micromachines in our bodies. For instance, the ATP Synthase, the dual motor pump mentioned earlier, is part of the Electron transport chain; four other DNA based, multiple part micromachines.

Sorry, but the math just doesn't hold up for a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal for all those necessary genetic changes in multiple proteins in multiple organs that needed to for the fish to amphibian transition. Not to mention all necessary genetic changes in multiple proteins in multiple organs for the 20 to 35 of the major phyla in the Cambrian explosion.

The better explanation for the various DNA based micromachines in our bodies is design

The evolution isn't by chance objection

This is correct to a point. Natural selection acts on the results of various genetic mutations. Traits that provide a survival or reproductive advantage in a specific environment become more prevalent in the population because individuals with those traits are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on their genes.

However, genetic mutations are random. The likelihood of a random mutation resulting in a harmful/neutral effect is much greater than resulting in an advantageous effect, as they seem to be very rare.  And there is no natural selection or survival of the fittest to  “guide” the process of genetic mutations - it’s always random.

Finally, DNA doesn't have offspring,  so natural selection can't explain anything concerning the development of our DNA based micromachines, or how proteins are formed. 

The design objection

Please don't say that design [purposeful, intentional guided process with a goal] is unscientific, since:

1) SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], 

2) an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, 

3) the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, 

4) an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. 

5) we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed or was natural. 

An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology. An a priori non-design stance for evolution seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts  

This is a God of the Gaps argument.

A God of the Gap argument assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon. But I’m not citing an unknown phenomenon or a gap in our knowledge. I am using the inference to the best explanation and citing what we do know about DNA, the difference between fish and amphibians, in order to choose between design [purposeful, intentional guided process with a goal] over a purposeless, unintentional unguided process without a goal.

Note 1: The math (1×10^90 x 5.4×10^44 x 4.32×10^17) was checked with these two different AI math solvers, here and here both had the same answer: 2.3328x10^152

For comparison, the number of possible ways to order a pack of 52 cards... is 8×10^67.... essentially meaning that a randomly shuffled deck has never been seen before and will never be seen again in our lifetime.

Note 2: 2.3328x10^151 takes into account the entire observable universe, but it's difficult to believe that particles outside the earth would affect evolution. Also, it's calculated from the beginning of the time [13.8 billion years] not the beginning of life [3.5 billion years], so the amount of total events for evolution of life is much smaller. Somewhere around 2.5x10^61.

Note 3: The numbers used for the amount of particles in the universe, the Placnk second, seconds since the Big Bang are from The Physics of the Universe's the Universe by the Numbers page

Additional info 

We Have Been LIED TO About Origin Of Life (Renowned Organic Chemist Speaks Out) [Video]

How Organic Chemistry Convinced Me of the Creator [Article]

Finding God through science – an atheist discovers chemical evolution can’t adequately explain the origin of life [Article]

Scientist Explains HUGE Mathematical Problems For Atheism [Video]

Scientists Are Changing Their Minds (EVIDENCE For God!) [Video]

Degrees of Punishment in Hell

The idea that there are different levels of punishment in hell is known by most due to Dante's classic Divine Comedy where he writes of the nine circles of hell. The circles are concentric, representing a gradual increase in wickedness, and culminating at the center of the earth, where Satan is held in bondage. Each circle’s sinners are punished in a fashion befitting their crimes. Each sinner is afflicted for all of eternity by the chief sin he committed. According to Dante, the circles range from the light punishment of the unbaptized and virtuous non-believers to the very center of hell reserved for those who have committed the ultimate sin and thus get the harshest punishment.

Although the Bible does not specifically say there are different "levels" in hell, it does seem to indicate that judgment will indeed be experienced differently for different people.

The biblical authors are clear that hell is a place of divine judgment on sinners. Furthermore, many authors speak of more and less severe degrees of punishment, dependent on several factors in one’s life, which indicates that some will bear a fiercer measure of the wrath of God upon them.

The biblical writers and our Lord himself describe hell as a place of divine judgment on sinners. In multiple passages the ideas of punishment, wrath, retribution, and vengeance are prominent (Matt. 5:22; 8:12; 10:28; 13:42; 24:51; 23:33; 25:30; Mark 9:43–48; Luke 13:28; 2 Thess. 1:5–10; Rev. 20:10–15). The purpose of hell is not that of rehabilitation of the sinner or even the obliteration of evil. The purpose is retributive justice—the punishment of God on sinners.

The biblical writers are not content, however, to speak of hell broadly in terms of divine justice and retribution. They go further and insist that the divine justice in hell will be specifically fitted to the guilt of each individual offender. We will explore this teaching here in four steps: 

Biblical Evidence for the Degrees of Punishment Concept of  Hell

Below are some passages of Scripture that speak directly of degrees of punishment in hell. Here we will just cite the verses to establish the teaching in principle; then we will draw on them for specific exposition and application.

“Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town” (Matt. 10:15).

“But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you … But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (Matt. 11:22, 24).

“I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt. 12:36–37).

“And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more” (Luke 12:47–48).

“But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom. 2:5).

“How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:29)

What is Meant by Degrees of Punishment

These statements of degrees of punishment in hell are not meant to suggest that there shall be anything less than perfect misery for every soul in hell. For every person in hell, it will be a place of “weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12), and this suffering will be forever (Rev. 14:11). No one in hell will have it easy. Hell will be a place of torment and misery for all who are there. Precisely how the degrees of punishment will be given out is not told us.

The Reasons for Degrees of Punishment

The infliction of punishment proportionately in degrees is an outworking of divine justice. Scripture repeatedly affirms that God will judge “in righteousness” (Acts 17:31) and that it is a function of God’s justice and glory to avenge every wrong (Rev. 16:1–7; 19:1–6). It is in the interests of divine justice that punishment will be given out according to the nature of the offense. We see a reflection of this, for example, in the Old Testament law which prescribed more severe punishment for premeditated murder than for accidental homicide. So also Moses’s law prescribed measures for restitution for various offenses. The nature of the crime, the attending motivations, and the varying circumstances all determine the measure of punishment.

This explains why Scripture repeatedly insists that judgment will be “according to works” (Rom. 2:6) and that in judgment “the books”—record books—will be opened (Rev. 20:12). There seems to be no point to this other than that of determining the measure of accumulated guilt, and that for the assigning the appropriate measure of punishment. This is why God the Judge will take into consideration the works, the words (Matt. 12:37), and even the thoughts and motives (Rom. 2:16) of sinners. Judgment is not merely for determining who is in and who is out; it is for measuring guilt and assigning punishment that is exactly what every individual sinner deserves.

The Basis for Determining Degrees of Punishment

What, then, will be the basis on which degrees of punishment will be determined? Scripture sets forth at least three considerations.

A) The Extent to which a Person has Abandoned Himself to Sin

The first consideration is the extent of the "abandonment to sin". This concept is entailed in Matthew 5:21 and other passages that indicate degrees of sin—worse sins result in worse punishment. This seems clearly to be the point in Romans 2:5—“Because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.” What can this mean but that every sin committed is like making a deposit in the bank and that in the day of judgment it will all be withdrawn in judgment? In judgment, every last sin will be taken into consideration in fitting each sinner for the exact degree of punishment deserved (Rev. 18:6–7).

It is the fool who reasons, “Well, if I’m going to hell, I might as well have my (sinful) fun in the meantime!” Every day given to sin, every venting of lust, every untruthful word, every next sin committed only adds to the punishment that will be assigned. It would be better for that man to die young than to live only to accumulate a lifetime of sin that will return to him in divine wrath.

B) The Extent to which a Person by Example and Influence has Led Others to Sin

The second consideration in measuring judgment is the extent to which a person who by example and/or influence has led others to sin. See Jesus' words in Matthew 18:5–7:

“Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!” (See also Mark 9:38–47.)

Here Jesus pronounces a woe on those who become an occasion for others to sin. The degree to which a person influences others to sin will in turn serve, in part, to establish the degree of his own punishment.

This appears to be at least one reason why there must be a day of judgment at the end of time. Final judgment is not fixed upon the death of every individual sinner: it is not until the end of time that the full effect of the influence of any one life can be measured. The omniscient God will take every individual life and assess every aspect of its influence—sometimes an influence that extends for centuries. And based on the accumulated influence of evil, God will mete out punishment upon the wicked.

Jesus warns of this again in Matthew 23:13: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.” This “woe” is pronounced on those who by their actions and teaching block the way to heaven for others.

The thought is stunning and deeply sobering. The parent who refuse Christ and, in turn, influence their children away from the things of God thereby increasing their guilt and the punishment they will receive for it. That older brother or sister or that friend or work associate who stands above his or her peers and who uses their position to influence others to sin and to ignore the gospel—all of this will be brought to bear on the day of judgment to measure the degree of punishment deserved.

The extent of abandonment to sin and the degree of sinful influence on others will serve to determine the extent of punishment received.

C) The Extent to which Light and Privilege were Abused

The third consideration in measuring judgment is the extent to which light and privilege were abused. Jesus speaks to this directly in Luke 12:47–48:

“And that servant who knew his master’s will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.”

The contrasting expressions—“severe beating” and “light beating”—indicate contrasting degrees of punishment. Both of the men in view here were servants accountable to their masters. Both did things that were worthy of punishment. And both in fact receive punishment. But the one had more understanding than the other and as a consequence received greater punishment. Differing degrees of light resulted in differing degrees of punishment. Both received lashes, but for the one it was “many”; for the other, it was “few.” And lest we miss the point, our Lord interprets the parable for us: “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” That is to say, the extent of light and privilege abused will determine, in part, the measure of punishment. (See also Rom. 2:12.)

Jesus speaks to this consideration elsewhere:

“Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town” (Matt. 10:15).

“But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you … But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you” (Matt. 11:22, 24).

As wicked and as guilty and as deserving of punishment as Sodom was, the greater sin belonged to Chorazin and Bethsaida, for they had seen and heard our Lord himself and had refused him. And for their abuse of such great light and privilege, their judgment will be the more severe.

Again, this is deeply troubling and sobering. The person who grows up in a society in which the gospel is readily available and the person who grows up in a Christian home has great light and privilege. The person who attends a gospel-preaching church has great light and privilege. The person who has a Christian friend who witnesses to him of Christ has great light and privilege. And for this light and privilege, God will hold them accountable—if such privilege is refused, judgment will be unspeakably great. For those who have heard the gospel only finally to refuse it, that gospel preached to them will in the end have served only to increase their guilt and enhance the punishment they will receive.

Conclusion

The punishment of hell will be in keeping with divine justice. The all-knowing God will assess each individual life, counting exactly the extent of abandonment to sin, the influence of others to sin, and the light and privilege abused, and he will assign punishment accordingly—exactly fitted to each person.

Surely this thought ought to capture the conscience of sinners such that they would restrain their sinning! Furthermore, this thought ought to drive any sinner to run to Christ and be saved! And surely this thought must drive every believer to humble yet glad praise for our Redeemer who took all of our sin to himself and paid its price in full, absorbing the full wrath of God in our place to make us his.

Whatever degrees of punishment hell contains, it is clear that hell is a place to be avoided.

Unfortunately, the Bible states that most people will wind up in hell: “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13–14). 

The question one must ask is “Which road am I on?” The “many” on the broad road have one thing in common—they have all rejected Christ as the one and only way to heaven. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). When He said He is the only way, that is precisely what He meant. Everyone following another “way” besides Jesus Christ is on the broad road to destruction, and the suffering is hideous, dreadful, eternal, and unavoidable.

Fined-Tuned Constants

 

Consider some of the finely-tuned factors that make our universe possible:

• If the strong nuclear force were slightly more powerful, then there would be no hydrogen, an essential element of life. If it was slightly weaker, then hydrogen would be the only element in existence.

• If the weak nuclear force were slightly different, then either there would not be enough helium to generate heavy elements in stars, or stars would burn out too quickly and supernova explosions could not scatter heavy elements across the universe

• If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, atomic bonds, and thus complex molecules, could not form.

• If the value of the gravitational constant were slightly larger, one consequence would be that stars would become too hot and burn out too quickly. If it were smaller, stars would never burn at all and heavy elements would not be produced.

The finely tuned laws and constants of the universe are an example of specified complexity in nature. They are complex in that their values and settings are highly unlikely. They are specified in that they match the specific requirements needed for life.

The following gives a sense of the degree of fine-tuning that must go into some of these values to yield a life-friendly universe:

• Gravitational constant: 1 part in 10^34

• Electromagnetic force versus force of gravity: 1 part in 10^37

• Cosmological constant: 1 part in 10^120

• Mass density of universe: 1 part in 10^59

• Expansion rate of universe: 1 part in 10^55

• Initial entropy: 1 part in 10^(10^123)

The last item in the list — the initial entropy of the universe — shows an astounding degree of fine-tuning. What all this shares is an incredible, astronomically precise, purposeful care and planning that went into the crafting of the laws and constants of the universe, gesturing unmistakably to intelligent design. As Nobel laureate in physics, Charles Townes stated:

Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

Some scientists respond, “Well, there must be an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” That’s a possibility, and it’s a pretty fantastic possibility — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. One would like to get a look at the universe-generating machine responsible for this abundance. Would it have to be fine-tuned? The other possibility is that our universe was planned, and that’s why it has come out so special.

William Lane Craig has a fantastic video explaining this:

God of the Gaps fallacy

Arguments from ignorance [which is what a GOTG is] occurs when evidence against one proposition is offered as the sole grounds for accepting an alternative. Thus, they have the following form:

Premise: Cause A cannot produce or explain evidence C.

Conclusion: Therefore, cause B produced or explains C.

It's easy it is to identify this type of fallacy, and how unreasonable it would be to use such thinking to try to prove any conclusion. Atheists and other skeptics often claim that the argument for God’s existence based on intelligent design is guilty of this type of illogical thought. How can the theist who is using the design argument show that it is not a God-of-the-gaps argument from ignorance?  

To depict proponents of the theory of intelligent design as committing the GOTG fallacy, critics must misrepresent the case for it. This misrepresentation of the design argument looks like this:

Premise: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information.

Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced the specified information in life.”

If this were how the design argument actually worked, there would be serious problems with it, and the skeptic would be right to challenge it as false. However, that this misrepresentation of the design argument leaves out a very important premise. The design argument includes the positive evidence that it implies:

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no materialistic causes have been discovered with the power to produce large amounts of specified information necessary to produce the first cell.

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information.

Premise Three: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified information in the cell.”

Notice that there is no gap in the properly stated form of the design argument. 

1) We have been doing scientific research for hundreds of years. 

2) We have discovered that intelligence is the only entity capable of producing large amounts of specified information. 

3) We see large amounts of specified information in cells. 

4) Therefore, we are forced by what we know about intelligence from centuries of scientific research to conclude that the specified information in cells is the product of an intelligent Creator. 

On the other hand, we also know enough about how matter behaves to conclude that it is impossible to get the specified information from materialistic causes. Origin-of-life experiments have been done for decades that have shown how matter does and does not behave. In every single experiment done to date, we have seen that natural processes not only do not produce life, but they cannot produce life. This is not a gap in our knowledge. The argument for design is based on what we know to be scientifically valid in every instance.

Why, then, are so many skeptics convinced that the design argument is a God-of-the-gaps logical fallacy?

The reason for this is a prior commitment to naturalism - the idea that only the physical exists. If a person begins by assuming that there has to be a naturalistic process that brought about life, then that person is forced to see a gap in our current knowledge, since no naturalistic processes have ever (in any experiment under any circumstances) even come close to producing a living cell. 

What chemical [or other natural] process first produced life? Since no such chemical process has been discovered, we are told this is simply a gap in our current knowledge that will be filled in the future. 

Nevertheless, our present lack of knowledge of any such chemical process entails a “gap” in our knowledge of the actual process by which life arose, only if some materialistic chemical evolutionary process actually did produce the first life. Yet if life did not evolve via a strictly materialistic process but was, for example, intelligently designed, then our absence of knowledge of a materialistic process does not represent “a gap” in knowledge of an actual process. Stephen C. Meyer (2021), Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe pp 424

An illustration that a “gap” only exists if a person begins by assuming that all scientific explanations must be materialistic:

Imagine someone mistakenly enters an art gallery expecting to find croissants for sale. That is, he thinks the gallery is actually a fancy bakery. Observing the absence of pastries and rolls, such a person may think that he has encountered a gap in the services provided by the gallery. He may even think that he has encountered a gap in the staff’s knowledge of what must definitely be present somewhere in the gallery. Based on his assumptions, the visitor may stubbornly cling to his perception of a gap, badgering the gallery staff to “bring out the croissants already,” until with exasperation they show him the exit. Ibid., p. 424.

The moral of the story? The gallery visitor’s perception of a gap in service or in knowledge of the location of the croissants derives from a false assumption about the nature of this establishment or about art galleries in general and what they typically offer to visitors.

There is only a gap if a person will not accept what we know scientifically to be true. We “do have extensive experience of intelligent agents producing finely tuned systems such as Swiss watches, fine recipes, integrated circuits, written texts, and computer programs.” Furthermore, “intelligence or mind or what philosophers call ‘agent causation’ now stands as the only known cause capable of generating large amounts of specified information.” And “it takes a mind to generate specified or functional information, whether in ordinary experience, computer simulations, origin-of-life simulation experiments, the production of new forms of life, or, as we now see, in modeling the design of the universe.” Ibid., pp 338, 187, 385

Conclusion

The design argument for the existence of God is not an argument from what we do not know, or we do not understand about the Universe and life in it, but instead is an argument based on the aspects of nature that we have reasons to conclude to be true. As John Lennox has stated, “I see God not in the bits of the Universe that I don’t understand, but in the bits that I do.” 

Muratorian Fragment

Also known as the "Muratorian Canon," the fragment is an ancient manuscript consisting of 85 lines, is a Latin manuscript bound in a roughly 8th-century codex that includes a list of New Testament books; affirming 22 out of the 27 books. Including all four Gospels, the book of Acts, all 13 epistles of Paul, along with Jude, 1 John and 2 John, and Revelation. (3rd John is included but disputed)

While the fragment itself dates from the 7th or 8th century, it contains features suggesting it is a translation from a Greek original written in the late 2nd century (c. 170–200).

 This is remarkably early to have such a comprehensive canon, and thus widespread agreement regarding most of the books of the New Testament by the end of the 2nd century.

It mentions the non-canonical Apocalypse of Peter but testifies to the fact that not everyone was in agreement about its authority. So while there definitely was some disagreement over certain books,  there was also general agreement over most of them.

It references the Shepherd of Hermas as a book that was widely read and appreciated among early Christians but was rejected as Scripture because it was written "very recently in our times."

This counters the claim that someone or some council chose the books of the NT since  as early as the late 2nd century (100 years or so after the last of the Apostles died), there was a core canon that was affirmed by Christians and accepted as Scripture on par with the Old Testament.  It also supports the idea that the NT was written early

See this early canon list
​