SteveB linked to a book, The Thomas Factor by Gary Habermas, on another thread. You can read the book for yourself on Habermas' website for free:
As an aside, I respect Habermas for doing that. Some supposed Christians are clearly in it for the money, and use every opportunity to hawk their wares. It is good to see a man whose faith is bigger than his greed, and makes texts like this freely available to his fellow Christians.
The book is not about apologetics. Indeed, from chapter 5 of the book:
Prophecy
We can look at a few that I feel are representative.
Old prophecies re-purposed: The most famous of these is the virgin birth. The prophecy is that the two nations that threatened Judah would fall within a couple of years. The time scale was described thus: before the virgin's yet-to-be-conceived child had learnt to tell right from wrong. Nothing about a messiah, until the author of Matthew got his hands on it and twisted it into something else.
Narrative changed to fit: Micah 2 has the Messiah come from Bethlehem Ephrathah, so the authors of Luke and Matthew contrived stories to make that so. Obviously they did not consult each other, and the results were very different! There are also several prophecies saying the Messiah would be of the seed of David, so again Luke and Matthew contrive that to be so, but fail to consult each other. We know one of them is wrong; I suspect they both are. And, of course, both also say he was he the product of a virgin birth!
Written after the event: It is generally reckoned that Daniel was written between 165 and 163 BC because the supposed prophecies are so spot-on until that time, and then suddenly go wildly off course. I suggest the supposed prophecies in Revelation up to 20:2 are recording events that had already happened, and so are accurate. Thereafter, the guesses about the future are way out.
Failed prophecies: There are plenty of Messianic prophecies Jesus failed to fulfil. Isaiah 52 and Micah 2, for example, says the Messiah will smite the Assyrians. Jesus never did that.
Miracles
The Resurrection
Manuscripts
I think there is a good argument that the Gospel of Matthew was written as an update of the Gospel of Mark; the second edition as it were, with a whole load of extra text added. Worth noting how in Mark after seeing the empty tomb the women tell no one, but in Matthew they immediately told the disciples. We know the author of Matthew had Mark to hand; why did he change the text so completely?
Certainly after a few centuries it was transmitted faithfully, but in the first few decades it was quite a different story.
Archaeology and geography at best confirm the author was familiar with the locations mentioned in the gospels (or not).
Jesus is God
Note that Habermas cites the resurrection as evidence for this, as well as the manuscripts point. Once the resurrection is questioned, 60% of his argument is suspect.
No wonder he has doubts...
As an aside, I respect Habermas for doing that. Some supposed Christians are clearly in it for the money, and use every opportunity to hawk their wares. It is good to see a man whose faith is bigger than his greed, and makes texts like this freely available to his fellow Christians.
The book is not about apologetics. Indeed, from chapter 5 of the book:
It turns out that this is not about removing doubt by proving Christianity is true, but removing doubt, regardless of whether that doubt is justified or not! In fairness, he does then go on to address this to some degree, and it is to respond to these points that I am making this post.So is Christianity true? Do we have the basis that we need in order to build the best possible emotional base throughout the remainder of this book?
This is not an apologetics textbook. So we will not provide here any of these arguments.
Prophecy
Sadly, he does not say what those prophesies are!Fulfilled prophecy argues that God is intricately involved in the march of human history. God even proposes prophecy as a test that He is Lord (Isa. 41:21-24; 45:20-22). Three areas that need to be investigated are those of distinctive city and nation predictions, specifications concerning Israel, and details pertaining to the coming of God’s chosen Messiah. I think the best overall case is one that is constructed of a few quality predictions in each category, rather than using larger numbers of less-verifiable instances. The choices would be those that were plainly given beforehand and clearly pertained only to the events in question, in order to rule out vagueness and manipulation. In such instances, the more specific these prophetic details are, the stronger the predictive value that results.
We can look at a few that I feel are representative.
Old prophecies re-purposed: The most famous of these is the virgin birth. The prophecy is that the two nations that threatened Judah would fall within a couple of years. The time scale was described thus: before the virgin's yet-to-be-conceived child had learnt to tell right from wrong. Nothing about a messiah, until the author of Matthew got his hands on it and twisted it into something else.
Narrative changed to fit: Micah 2 has the Messiah come from Bethlehem Ephrathah, so the authors of Luke and Matthew contrived stories to make that so. Obviously they did not consult each other, and the results were very different! There are also several prophecies saying the Messiah would be of the seed of David, so again Luke and Matthew contrive that to be so, but fail to consult each other. We know one of them is wrong; I suspect they both are. And, of course, both also say he was he the product of a virgin birth!
Written after the event: It is generally reckoned that Daniel was written between 165 and 163 BC because the supposed prophecies are so spot-on until that time, and then suddenly go wildly off course. I suggest the supposed prophecies in Revelation up to 20:2 are recording events that had already happened, and so are accurate. Thereafter, the guesses about the future are way out.
Failed prophecies: There are plenty of Messianic prophecies Jesus failed to fulfil. Isaiah 52 and Micah 2, for example, says the Messiah will smite the Assyrians. Jesus never did that.
Miracles
The idea that these miracles are "exceptionally well-attested" is, frankly, bizarre. I can only presume he means compared to other Biblical miracles, that have just one attestation. Luke and Matthew both likely drew from Mark and Q so any miracle claims in any of the three really has only a single attestation. Are there miracles that are shared between John and the synotics? If there are, that arguably gives two attestation. Is that exceptional? Not to me.Jesus’ miracles are seldom used today in Christian apologetics, but are still a worthwhile evidence in an overall case for Christian theism. Jesus claimed several times that His miracles indicated that His message was true (for examples, Mk. 2:10-12; Lk. 7:20-22). His followers agreed (Jn. 20:30-31; Acts 2:22). These events are exceptionally well-attested, being found in every level of strata in the four Gospels, and are even admitted by Jesus’ enemies. Several of them are either attended by intriguing historical details that can be otherwise verified, or offer other marks of authenticity. Certain examples from recent medical literature reveal some fascinating, evidenced parallels that may argue that God is similarly active today. For reasons like these, contemporary critics treat very seriously these aspects of the Gospels narratives.
The Resurrection
That is not actually true, as even Habermas admits elsewhere. His "minimal facts" depends on the Empty Tomb, but as he concedes, about a quarter of scholars reject the Empty Tomb. The Empty Tomb is certainly NOT admitted by unbelieving critical scholars today, and it is NOT strongly attested by the known data.Without question, the chief verification of Christian theism comes from the resurrection of Jesus. This extraordinary event can be shown to be historical even when only a bare minimum of historical facts is used, each of which is both admitted by unbelieving critical scholars today, as well as being strongly attested by the known data. Further, alternative attempts to dismiss the resurrection on natural grounds have failed to account for the same data, as even these same critics generally admit. In the New Testament, both Jesus (Matt. 12:39-40; 16:4) and His apostles (Acts 2:22-24; 17:31) pointed to the resurrection as the chief sign that He was God’s messenger.
Manuscripts
In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise. We have good reason to believe the second half of Mark 16 was added later, and likewise John 21. The Pericope Adulterae is absent from earlier manuscripts.That the Bible is a trustworthy document can be shown through a variety of avenues: manuscript number, copying accuracy, archeology, geography, extrabiblical confirmation, ancient legal and other customs, as well as studies concerning the dates and authorship of the writers of the various books. The inspiration of Scripture is also a crucial truth. Fulfilled prophecy points to at least portions of the Bible being God’s words (cf. Deut. 18:17-22). Jesus’ miracles are helpful in this regard, too (Jn. 14:11). But the strongest argument for inspiration is that this was the testimony of Jesus, whose teachings were confirmed by His resurrection from the dead.
I think there is a good argument that the Gospel of Matthew was written as an update of the Gospel of Mark; the second edition as it were, with a whole load of extra text added. Worth noting how in Mark after seeing the empty tomb the women tell no one, but in Matthew they immediately told the disciples. We know the author of Matthew had Mark to hand; why did he change the text so completely?
Certainly after a few centuries it was transmitted faithfully, but in the first few decades it was quite a different story.
Archaeology and geography at best confirm the author was familiar with the locations mentioned in the gospels (or not).
Jesus is God
Did Jesus actually say he is the son of God? As far as I know, this is only in John - written about sixty years after Jesus died. Why does Mark not record Jesus saying that? Because it had not been invented by that point.A crucial component of Christianity concerns the deity of Jesus Christ. Not only are Jesus’ claims concerning Himself (especially as indicated by His titles Son of Man and Son of God) established on very strong textual grounds. They are vindicated by the prophecy He fulfilled, the miracles that He performed, and especially by His resurrection. The latter was the chief indication that God confirmed Jesus’ teachings (Acts 2:22-24; 17:31), and His deity, in particular (Rom. 1:3-4). After all, God would not raise a heretic from the dead.
Note that Habermas cites the resurrection as evidence for this, as well as the manuscripts point. Once the resurrection is questioned, 60% of his argument is suspect.
No wonder he has doubts...