If a big ministry or supposedly Christian leader is threatening to sue you in order to scare you into covering up their sins please know that I am interested in defending you and may financially help your case. You’re not alone.

As a pastor, I see this every day. Let’s solve it!

NEW 🔴 A kayaker off Chile was swallowed by a humpback whale but somehow emerged unharmed.

𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐄𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐖𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲? 𝑹𝒆𝒇𝒖𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒊𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒎𝒑𝒕𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔 𝒉𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝑪𝒉𝒓𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒚 Part Two: 1/2 **My Initial Claim** 2. Early Christian Writings: The New Testament documents are early, well-attested, and numerous compared to other ancient texts. Manuscript evidence supports their reliability. ••••Logistrix’s Response•••• This point is extremely vague so I’m not sure I can offer much of a rebuttal. I will say that the scholarly consensus for dating seems to be not super early… Pauline epistles were written in the 15-30 years after Jesus’ death. These have very little in the way of details of Jesus’ life and recounts basically nothing of what Jesus ever said. Mark was written in early 60s (~30 years post-death) and is the least detail-rich and has the least… impressive… Jesus Matt was written after Mark as much of Mark is copied into Matt. Most put Matt in 70+ (~40 years post-death) due to the more developed christology and reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke was written between 80 and 110 CE (50-80 years post-death) and it seems to have been heavily edited well into the 2nd century. Christology and details are increased quite a bit in Luke from prior gospels John was written between 90 and 110 CE (60-80 years post-death). John has by far the highest christology and a superman-style Jesus. This dramatic increasing of the Jesus’ details, christology, and impressiveness suggests to me that there is ongoing legendary development and filling-in of details. **my response** Logistrix’s response shows he doesn’t understand what it means for a manuscript to be well-attested so first I’ll explain what that means. Imagine if we had only one surviving copy of The Iliad by Homer, and this copy was written almost 2,000 years after the original. In this scenario, it would be almost impossible to verify whether what we were reading was what Homer actually wrote. In reality, The Iliad is well-attested, with about 1,900 manuscripts. That means we can compare copies, identify variations, and reconstruct the original text with reasonable accuracy. However, the earliest complete version we have still* dates to nearly 1,800 years after Homer’s time. This means that for nearly two thousand years, errors, alterations, or even fabrications could have crept in—yet historians STILL consider The Iliad well-attested. Now consider a poorly attested work like what we see with the Roman historian Sallust. Here we have only a handful of manuscripts, most of which are fragments and copied many centuries after he wrote them. Because of this, scholars sometimes have to guess at missing sections and rely on secondary sources. The poor attestation of these works make it harder to be sure about what was originally written by Sallust. So why does this matter for Christianity? Because the New Testament is one of the best-attested works of antiquity. Unlike The Iliad or Sallust’s writings, we have over 5,800 Greek manuscripts. Some of these manuscripts are dated within 50-100 years of the original writings. That means we have an unprecedented ability to cross-check copies and verify what was originally written, making the New Testament far more reliable than most other ancient texts. This is crucial because Christianity is based on historical claims. If the New Testament had poor attestation—like only a handful of copies written many centuries later—we wouldn’t have good reason to trust its reliability. But because we have thousands of manuscripts, written far closer to the originals than nearly any other ancient text, we can reconstruct the original writings with extraordinary accuracy. This means that the central historical claims of Christianity are preserved with far greater confidence than virtually any other events of antiquity.

If someone argued: “We should allow content showing child sexual exploitation on X and in society because it’s art/free-speech.” How would you respond? What argument would you make to refute them? Now explain to me how your response wouldn’t also apply to porn in general.

We often say that the early Christian martyrs were willing to die for their beliefs, which proves they weren’t lying. That’s true… but I don’t think it goes far enough. Why were they SO bold? Most people, even if they hold something dear, would deny it to avoid torture and death. But the early Christians didn’t just refuse to recant—they faced death with joy. What explains that* kind of boldness? The best answer isn’t just that they believed in Christ—it’s that they had seen Him conquer death with their own eyes. They weren’t dying for a philosophy or a religious ideal, they were dying because they knew, beyond all doubt, that death had been defeated. Christ had also promised them a resurrection, and they had no reason to think He was wrong—because He had already walked out of the grave Himself.

Almost 5% of All Canadians Who Died in 2023 Were Euthanized