The Historical Jesus and the Question Ehrman Leaves Unanswered

Bart Ehrman accepts that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, but he does not accept the Christian confession that Jesus is the divine Son of God. His acknowledgment of Jesus’ existence is therefore a starting point for the Christian defense, not its destination. The central disagreement concerns whether Jesus’ divine identity was truthfully revealed through His words, works, death, and resurrection, or whether His followers progressively assigned Him a status He never possessed. In How Jesus Became God, Ehrman presents an account of changing beliefs about Jesus rather than a confession that those beliefs are true. His reconstruction distinguishes an earthly Jewish preacher from the divine figure proclaimed by Christians. Answering that reconstruction requires showing why the apostolic testimony identifies the historical Jesus Himself as the preexistent Son whom the Father sent into the world.

Accuracy is indispensable at the outset because Ehrman’s actual position is more complicated than the assertion that Jesus’ divinity was invented centuries after His death. He recognizes that Paul already understood Christ as a heavenly divine being who became human. He also recognizes that John explicitly presents Jesus as possessing divine status. His objection concerns the historical origin and truth of these convictions, including whether Jesus Himself made the claims attributed to Him and whether resurrection faith establishes what Christians say it establishes. A defense that merely repeats that Jesus existed leaves those objections unanswered. The necessary argument must examine the passages Ehrman interprets, distinguish the evidence from his reconstruction of its development, and establish why Jesus’ divine sonship explains the testimony more adequately than the claim that His followers created it.

Why Ehrman Accepts Jesus as a Historical Person

Ehrman’s acceptance of Jesus’ existence rests on his assessment of ancient testimony, including Paul’s contact with people personally connected to Jesus. Galatians 1:18-19 records Paul’s visit to Cephas and his meeting with James, identified as the Lord’s brother. The passage concerns Paul’s own movements and relationships rather than an abstract argument about a heavenly being. The significance of James is particularly concrete because the relationship connects Jesus with a living family member whom Paul says he met. Ehrman also accepts Jesus’ Jewish setting, public activity, and execution under Pontius Pilate as historical realities. His skepticism therefore operates within an acknowledgment that Christianity concerns a particular man who lived and died in the world described by the New Testament.

Those historical judgments establish the person whose identity is disputed. They do not establish that the divine claims associated with Him are false, and they do not permit those claims to be excluded from consideration without examination. A scholar who accepts that Jesus was crucified must still assess the testimony concerning why His followers proclaimed Him after His death. A scholar who accepts Paul’s contact with Peter and James must still consider what those relationships imply about access to the earliest proclamation. The historical-grammatical method proceeds by examining the language and context of the surviving documents rather than assuming a sequence in which every higher claim must represent a later invention. The question is whether the texts reveal increasing human exaggeration or an unfolding recognition of the identity Jesus already possessed.

What Must Be Established About the Son of God

The expression Son of God must be interpreted according to context because Scripture uses sonship language in more than one way. Israel is called Jehovah’s son in Exodus 4:22, and the Davidic royal relationship is described through father-and-son language in 2 Samuel 7:14. These usages show why the mere appearance of the title does not, by itself, establish every aspect of Jesus’ identity. Ehrman is correct to distinguish ancient uses of divine and royal language from the later technical vocabulary of Christian doctrinal formulations. Nevertheless, the existence of broader uses does not determine the meaning of the title when applied to Jesus within passages describing His prehuman existence, creative agency, and unique relationship with the Father. The decisive issue concerns what the writers affirm about this Son, not whether the same family vocabulary can appear elsewhere with a different reference.

The New Testament attributes to Jesus an identity extending beyond that of an ordinary human king or prophet. John 1:1-3 places the Word with God before His earthly life and identifies Him as the One through whom all things came into existence. John 1:14 identifies the incarnation of that Word, while John 17:5 records Jesus speaking of glory He had with the Father before the world existed. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul identifies Jesus Christ as the One through whom all things exist. Hebrews 1:2-3 connects the Son with the making of the ages and describes Him as the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being. These affirmations supply the substantive content of divine sonship while preserving the personal distinction between the Father who sends and the Son who is sent.

John 1:1 does more than say that a future human life existed in God’s intention. Its final clause identifies the Word as God, while its preceding clause places the Word with God and thus distinguishes Him from the One with whom He was. The Greek wording therefore requires attention both to the Word’s divinity and to His personal relationship with God. John 1:3 proceeds to describe His agency in creation, giving the opening statement a concrete reference beyond the existence of an abstract plan. John 1:14 then identifies this same Word as the One who became flesh. A reconstruction that reduces the passage to an ordinary man subsequently honored by admirers has replaced the sequence John actually records with a different sequence.

Ehrman’s Objection That John Contains the Distinctive Divine Claims

One of Ehrman’s central objections concerns the difference between John and the other Gospels. He observes that sayings such as those in John 8:58, John 10:30, and John 14:9 do not appear in the same form in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. He reasons that such extraordinary claims would have been too important for earlier Gospel writers to omit if Jesus had actually made them. On that basis, he treats John’s distinctive presentation as evidence of a developed understanding rather than straightforward preservation of Jesus’ historical self-disclosure. This argument deserves a direct answer because it challenges the authenticity of the sayings used to identify Jesus as divine. Its force depends on whether different selection and expression establish contradiction or invention.

The inference from omission to invention is not compelled by the evidence. John 20:30-31 expressly states that the author selected signs from a larger body of material, and John 21:25 likewise emphasizes that the written account is selective. The other evangelists also selected material rather than producing identical transcripts of every occasion on which Jesus taught. Matthew records substantial teaching in Matthew 5:1–7:29 that does not appear in Mark as a continuous discourse, yet difference in presentation does not itself demonstrate fabrication. An argument from silence requires a reason why a particular author must have included a particular statement in his chosen account. Ehrman’s objection becomes substantially weaker if Matthew, Mark, and Luke already present Jesus’ exceptional identity through His actions, relationships, and authority, even when they do not reproduce John’s wording.

The Divine Son Is Already Present in Matthew, Mark, and Luke

Matthew 11:27 provides a direct challenge to the suggestion that the distinctive relationship between Father and Son appears only in John. Jesus states that all things have been handed over to Him by His Father and describes a reciprocal knowledge between Father and Son that no ordinary human being possesses. He also identifies the Son as the One who reveals the Father to others. Luke 10:22 preserves the same essential claim, showing that this presentation is not confined to the Fourth Gospel. A prophet can communicate information received from God, but this saying concerns the Son’s singular relationship to the Father and His authority over the revelation of Him. Its content is closely related to John’s presentation even though its wording and narrative setting differ.

Mark 12:1-12 presents another distinction that cannot be reduced to Jesus being simply one more religious teacher. In the account Jesus tells, the owner sends servants and finally sends his beloved son. The son belongs to a different category within the account, possessing a relationship to the owner that the servants do not share. The religious leaders understand that Jesus has spoken against them, as Mark 12:12 makes explicit. The account does not provide a complete explanation of preexistence or divine nature, and it should not be asked to do so. It nevertheless presents Jesus’ mission in terms of unique sonship rather than an interchangeable place among earlier messengers.

Mark 14:61-64 adds a direct statement concerning Jesus’ identity and authority. When asked whether He is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One, Jesus answers affirmatively and speaks of the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven. His answer brings together the royal authority of Psalm 110:1 and the heavenly scene of Daniel 7:13-14. The context concerns authority associated with God’s rule and the judgment of those questioning Him. The passage does not identify Jesus as the Father, but it unmistakably places Him beyond the status of an ordinary condemned teacher. Ehrman’s emphasis on John’s distinctive formulations therefore fails to establish that the other Gospels know nothing of extraordinary sonship, heavenly authority, or a unique relationship with God.

Forgiveness and Judgment Must Be Read Cumulatively

Ehrman also objects that the forgiveness of the paralytic’s sins in Mark 2:5-12 does not necessarily mean Jesus was claiming to be God. A careful defense should acknowledge the limited point: authority exercised on God’s behalf cannot automatically be equated with identity as the Father. Jesus commissioned His disciples to exercise authority, and no Christian argument should treat every commissioned act as proof of divine nature. Nevertheless, Mark does not present the episode as an ordinary announcement that forgiveness exists in general. Jesus authoritatively addresses the man’s sins and then performs a visible act so that those present may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. The miracle is explicitly connected with verification of a claim concerning His own authority.

The significance of that episode becomes clearer alongside Jesus’ other recorded claims. Matthew 25:31-46 presents the Son of Man exercising judgment over the nations. Matthew 7:21-23 places recognition by Jesus at the decisive point in the judgment of those who claim to serve Him. John 5:22-23 explicitly connects the Father’s appointment of the Son as judge with the honor due to Him. No isolated passage must carry the entire argument, and the case should not depend on reducing every statement to the formula that Jesus is the Father. Together, these texts describe the unique Son who reveals God, forgives with divine authorization, exercises final judgment, and receives honor inseparably connected with honoring the Father.

Why John Cannot Be Dismissed Merely for Being Explicit

Ehrman’s argument about John also raises a basic question concerning historical judgment. A clearer explanation of an identity is not automatically a less historical explanation. An eyewitness can record a statement omitted by another witness, and an author can organize testimony to make an implication explicit without inventing the events underlying it. John 19:35 emphasizes eyewitness testimony concerning Jesus’ death, and John 21:24 identifies the disciple associated with the testimony preserved in the account. These claims require evaluation, but the theological significance of the testimony is not itself a reason to reject them. Otherwise, the very passages most directly addressing Jesus’ identity would be excluded because they address it directly.

John also preserves features of Jesus’ humanity and dependence that an argument about simple progressive exaggeration does not adequately explain. John 4:6 describes His weariness, John 11:35 records His tears, and John 19:28 reports His thirst. John 5:19 presents the Son’s action in relation to the Father rather than portraying Him as a rival deity acting independently. John 17:3 distinguishes the Father from Jesus Christ, whom the Father sent. The same Gospel that most explicitly presents Jesus’ preexistence and divine identity also preserves His genuine human experience and His relationship of obedience to the Father. Its presentation must therefore be interpreted as a coherent account of the Son made flesh rather than divided into supposedly inconvenient human details and allegedly invented divine ones.

Ehrman’s Reconstruction of an Earlier Exalted Human Jesus

Ehrman distinguishes an understanding in which Christ descended from a preexistent heavenly life from an understanding in which a human Jesus was raised to divine status. He argues that the latter represents an earlier stage of Christian belief preserved in confessional material used by New Testament writers. The claim concerns a reconstructed sequence of belief: first a human being exalted, then a divine being understood to have come into the world. That sequence is a historical proposal, not a manuscript that can be placed beside the New Testament and read directly. A passage describing exaltation must therefore be shown to deny prior sonship before it can serve as evidence that the two understandings are incompatible. Without that demonstration, distinct descriptions of Christ’s humiliation and exaltation can refer to successive experiences of the same preexistent Son.

The difference between identity and appointment is essential here. A person may already possess a relationship while later receiving an office, public vindication, or a new exercise of authority. Jesus’ resurrection and enthronement need not constitute the beginning of His existence as the Son any more than a king’s enthronement constitutes the beginning of his existence as a person. This distinction must be established from the texts themselves rather than supplied as an escape from difficulty. Romans 1:3-4, Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4, and Philippians 2:6-11 provide precisely the relevant contexts. They speak both of the Son’s coming and of His subsequent vindication and exaltation, requiring an interpretation that preserves the whole sequence.

Romans 1:3-4 Does Not Say Jesus First Became God at His Resurrection

Romans 1:3 begins by identifying the subject of the gospel as God’s Son before describing His descent from David according to the flesh. Romans 1:4 then describes His designation as Son of God in power in relation to the resurrection from the dead. The Greek participle horisthentos can express appointment or designation, and its meaning should not be reduced to an English gloss selected to settle the entire theological question. The phrase in power is crucial because the passage concerns the Son’s powerful, vindicated status in connection with resurrection. Paul does not begin with an unidentified human who becomes God and only afterward acquires a relationship with the Father. He begins with the Son and describes His Davidic descent and His resurrection-associated position in power.

The wider argument of Romans confirms that reading. Romans 8:3 describes God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin. The movement is from the sending of the Son to His mission in human life, not from resurrection to the creation of sonship. Romans 8:32 likewise identifies the One God did not spare as His own Son when speaking of His being handed over for others. These statements do not fit a reading in which Paul’s own settled teaching recognizes no sonship before the resurrection. A proposed earlier formula detached from these contexts remains a reconstruction whose interpretation must be defended, rather than treated as a fact that overrides Paul’s explicit statements.

Acts 2:36 should be approached with the same care. Peter declares that God made the crucified Jesus both Lord and Christ, but the surrounding speech concerns His resurrection, exaltation, and royal position at God’s right hand. Acts 2:30-35 connects the proclamation with the Davidic promise and Psalm 110:1. The declaration concerns the establishment and vindication of the crucified Messiah in His appointed rule. It does not state that Jesus was previously unrelated to God or that a merely human nature was transformed into divine nature. Luke 1:32-35 has already identified Him as the Son in the account of His conception and birth, so reading Acts as a continuation of Luke requires attention to that prior identification.

Philippians 2 Undermines a Simple Theory of Progressive Deification

Ehrman’s acknowledgment concerning Philippians 2:6-11 is especially significant because it places belief in Christ’s prehuman divine existence within Paul’s own correspondence. He recognizes that the passage describes a heavenly divine being who becomes human and is subsequently exalted. The Christian response should preserve that concession accurately rather than claim that Ehrman personally believes the passage’s theology. What matters historically is that an early apostolic document already contains the movement from heavenly existence to earthly humiliation. That evidence prevents John’s Gospel from being treated as the first point at which Christians imagined Christ existing before His human life. It also requires the proposed development from a merely human Jesus to a divine Christ to occur before evidence that already presents the higher understanding.

The passage itself provides a coherent sequence. Philippians 2:6 identifies Christ in the form of God, while Philippians 2:7 describes His self-emptying through taking a servant’s form and coming in human likeness. Philippians 2:8 proceeds to His obedience extending to death on a cross. Philippians 2:9-11 then describes God’s exaltation of Him and the acknowledgment of His lordship. His exaltation follows the voluntary humiliation of One whose existence did not begin with that humiliation. Nothing in that sequence requires the conclusion that an ordinary man was transformed into a divine being for the first time.

The expression about equality with God in Philippians 2:6 requires particular lexical care. The debated word harpagmos has been understood in terms of seizing, retaining, or exploiting an advantage, and the Christian case should not rest on pretending that no interpretive question exists. The passage’s central movement remains evident across that debate: Christ’s relation to divine glory precedes His taking the servant’s condition and undergoing death. The context in Philippians 2:3-5 applies His conduct to the humility expected of believers. Paul grounds that exhortation in the Son’s voluntary self-humbling rather than in an ambitious human being’s successful ascent to divinity. The confession at the end brings glory to God the Father, preserving the relationship between the exalted Son and the Father who exalts Him.

The Claim That Paul Understood Christ as an Angel

Ehrman has also argued that Paul understood Christ’s prehuman identity in angelic terms, appealing particularly to Galatians 4:14. In that passage, Paul says that the Galatians received him as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. Ehrman takes the relationship between those expressions as support for identifying Christ with a heavenly messenger. This is a specific grammatical and conceptual proposal, and it should be answered at that level. The wording does not require the conclusion that angel of God and Christ Jesus name the same category of being in every respect. It can describe an ascending comparison in the welcome Paul received, culminating in the reception appropriate to Christ Himself.

Even the proposed angelic interpretation does not establish that Jesus was merely a human teacher whose divine identity was invented long afterward. It already presupposes an account of prehuman heavenly existence, which is one of the very features excluded by a strictly human beginning. More importantly, the broader testimony must govern the interpretation of a comparison in a letter addressing Paul’s reception. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Christ is associated with the existence of all things, and Hebrews 1:4-6 explicitly distinguishes the Son’s status from that of angels. Hebrews 1:13-14 contrasts the Son’s position at God’s right hand with the ministering service of angels. The proper conclusion must account for that testimony rather than allow a disputed comparison in Galatians to reduce the Son’s identity to what the wider passages do not say.

The Son’s Humanity Does Not Disprove His Divine Identity

A defense of Jesus as the divine Son must also take His genuine humanity seriously. Luke 2:52 describes His growth, Matthew 4:2 records His hunger, and Mark 4:38 depicts Him sleeping. Mark 13:32 distinguishes the Son’s knowledge concerning the day or hour from the Father’s knowledge. These statements cannot be removed because they complicate a preferred philosophical formulation. They describe the real human life of the Son and His relationship with the Father. The claim being defended is that the preexistent Son became human, not that He merely appeared human while lacking the conditions the Gospels explicitly record.

Philippians 2:7-8 provides the controlling connection between His prior status and His earthly condition. The One who possessed heavenly glory accepted a servant’s condition and lived in obedience. John 17:5 likewise joins His earthly mission with the glory He had with the Father before the world existed. Genuine human limitation in the incarnate life therefore does not, by itself, refute preexistence or divine sonship. Nor does the Son’s obedience make Him the Father, since obedience describes a relationship between them. An interpretation that denies His divine identity because He obeyed the Father has assumed that divine sonship must mean personal identity with the Father, a claim the passages themselves do not require.

Ehrman’s Historical Restriction Concerning the Resurrection

Ehrman’s treatment of the resurrection involves an important methodological distinction. He argues that historians cannot establish a God-produced miracle as a historical conclusion, even if such a miracle actually occurred. He also states that historical methods cannot establish that miracles have not occurred. His position therefore cannot honestly be summarized as a historical demonstration that Jesus remained dead. It places a restriction on what the historian may conclude about divine action. That restriction must be examined because the resurrection is central to the New Testament’s public vindication of Jesus’ identity.

A limitation adopted by a discipline does not settle the reality of an event outside the permitted conclusion. If a method excludes divine action from its explanatory options, that method cannot then claim to have disproved divine action by failing to select it. The relevant questions concern whether Jehovah exists, whether He can act within history, and whether the evidence in this particular case supports the claim that He did. The Christian argument does not require treating every extraordinary report as true. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 itself warns that impressive signs must be assessed in relation to truth and fidelity to Jehovah. The resurrection claim must therefore be evaluated together with Jesus’ identity, teaching, mission, and the testimony to what happened after His execution.

Visions Do Not Automatically Explain Away the Appearances

Ehrman accepts that experiences understood as appearances of Jesus played a decisive role in the disciples’ resurrection belief. He distinguishes experiences caused by an external reality from experiences without such a cause and explicitly declines, within that historical discussion, to settle which explanation applies. That qualification matters because it would misrepresent him to say that he claims to have proved all the disciples hallucinated. His discussion leaves a question concerning the cause and reliability of their experiences. The Christian response must therefore explain why the testimony supports real encounters with the risen Jesus. Merely establishing that unusual psychological experiences sometimes occur does not establish the cause of the particular experiences described in the New Testament.

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul connects Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and appearances within the proclamation he received and delivered. He names Cephas and James, refers to the Twelve and all the apostles, and reports an appearance to more than 500 brothers on one occasion. Paul also includes his own encounter while distinguishing its timing from the earlier appearances. These are claims concerning persons and groups rather than a general statement that the disciples felt inwardly comforted. The passage does not preserve separate written statements from all 500, and no argument should pretend that it does. Nevertheless, a proposed explanation must address the range of testimony actually transmitted instead of replacing it with a single imagined bereavement experience.

The Gospel accounts provide further features relevant to that assessment. Luke 24:36-43 describes frightened disciples being corrected and records Jesus eating in their presence. John 20:24-29 presents Thomas as initially refusing the report and subsequently encountering Jesus. Matthew 28:16-17 preserves the fact that doubt remained among those confronted with the extraordinary events. Such details do not portray a group unanimously expecting resurrection and readily converting every feeling into confirmation. Their evidential value lies in the specific encounters and corrections being reported, which require examination rather than dismissal under a psychological label.

The Resurrection Vindicates a Particular Claim About Jesus

The resurrection argument must itself avoid an invalid inference. Scripture reports other persons being restored to life, including Lazarus in John 11:43-44, without identifying them as divine. Being raised from the dead, considered in isolation, would therefore not prove that the person raised is the divine Son of God. The significance of Jesus’ resurrection depends on who He claimed to be, what He taught concerning His mission, and the relationship between His death and the Father’s vindication. John 10:17-18 connects His surrender of life and its recovery with the commission received from His Father. Romans 1:3-4 connects the resurrection with His designation as Son of God in power.

Jesus also directly connected His identity with the prospect of death and resurrection. Mark 8:31 describes His teaching that the Son of Man would suffer, be rejected, be killed, and rise again. John 2:19-22 connects His statement about raising the temple with His body and the disciples’ later understanding after the resurrection. These statements place resurrection within His own explanation of His mission rather than presenting it as an unrelated wonder added to an ordinary teacher’s career. The resurrection therefore functions as vindication of a previously articulated identity and mission. The force of the Christian case arises from that connection between claim, event, and divine confirmation.

The Father’s Testimony and the Son’s Works

The Gospels do not ask the reader to accept Jesus’ identity merely because His followers admired Him. John 5:31-39 presents several converging forms of testimony, including John the Baptist, the works the Father gave Jesus to accomplish, the Father’s testimony, and the Scriptures. John 10:36-38 places His identification as the Son of God alongside His works and His relationship with the Father. Jesus directs attention to what He does as evidence relevant to understanding who He is. The argument concerns the coherence of His claim with His deeds, rather than the bare fact that an extraordinary act occurred. That is why reducing Him to an admired teacher does not adequately address the presentation the Gospels themselves make.

John 11:25-27 gives this relationship concrete expression. Jesus identifies Himself in connection with resurrection and life, and Martha confesses Him as the Christ, the Son of God, the One coming into the world. The subsequent raising of Lazarus is presented within that exchange concerning His identity and authority. John 11:41-42 records His acknowledgment of the Father in a way intended to establish that the Father sent Him. The event does not collapse Father and Son into one person or make Lazarus divine because he was raised. It presents the Son exercising life-giving authority in conscious relationship with the Father, which is precisely the kind of claim Ehrman’s purely human reconstruction must explain.

The Divine Son Existed Before His Earthly Mission

The repeated language of sending is especially important because it joins sonship with the mission rather than locating sonship only after its completion. Galatians 4:4 describes God sending His Son, born of a woman and born under law. Romans 8:3 likewise speaks of God sending His own Son into the human situation in which sin would be condemned. Those passages identify the One sent as the Son rather than describing a man who would later acquire sonship for the first time. John 16:28 makes the movement explicit by describing Jesus’ coming from the Father into the world and His return to the Father. The recurring sequence is heavenly origin, earthly mission, completed obedience, and return to heavenly glory.

John 17:24 further records Jesus speaking of the Father’s love for Him before the foundation of the world. This is personal relational language, not merely a statement that an idea about Jesus existed in God’s intention. Alongside John 17:5, it describes the Son’s relationship with the Father before the earthly ministry. Ehrman’s reconstruction may propose that Christians came to believe these things, but a proposal about the formation of belief is not itself a demonstration that the belief is false. The historical question remains whether the witnesses reliably preserved Jesus’ self-disclosure and the events that vindicated Him. The agreement between the Gospel testimony and the apostolic presentation of the Son’s prior existence gives substantive reason to accept that they did.

Believing in the Son Requires More Than Acknowledging the Man

John 20:30-31 states the intended relationship between written testimony and belief in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. The signs are recorded so that the reader may recognize His identity and have life in His name. That purpose brings the historical person and the divine Son together rather than treating them as two unrelated objects of inquiry. The One who walked in Judea, spoke with His disciples, suffered under Pilate, and was raised is the One whom the Father sent. Ehrman’s acknowledgment of the historical person does not require acceptance of every Christian claim, but neither does it provide an evidential reason to sever that person from His recorded identity. The claims about His sonship must stand or fall through examination of the testimony, not through an assumption that divine identity is historically inadmissible.

In John 5:23-24, Jesus connects honoring the Son with honoring the Father who sent Him and connects hearing His word with belief in that Father. John 12:48 likewise presents His words as carrying consequences in the last day. These statements do not leave the reader with a merely admirable figure whose significance is exhausted by the fact that He existed. They confront the reader with the authority of the Son whose words reveal the Father and whose mission provides the way to life. To reject that authority, one must answer the testimony to His preexistence, His unique relationship with the Father, His works, and His resurrection. The question in Matthew 16:15 therefore presses beyond agreement about ancient biography and requires an answer concerning the identity of Jesus Himself.

You May Also Enjoy

Why Christian Faith Is Reasonable—Truth, Evidence, and the Resurrection

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS