Tom Gilson

Cincinnati Apologetics Conference with Alisa Childers September 10-11!

I’ll be speaking as well. Kudos to Tim Waugh, pastor of Faith Community United Methodist Church, who wants to be a light for the truth of Christ in his community and among United Methodists!

Click for the full-definition flier, downloadable:

Commenting Restored

The comment function here has been out of service, possibly causing frustration, for which I apologize. You can comment again now, and it will save and post as it should do. First-time commenters' comments will not appear, however, until approved in moderation.

2 thoughts on “Cincinnati Apologetics Conference with Alisa Childers September 10-11!

  1. Christian apologetics has a big problem. Probably the weakest link in the Christian argument for the historicity of the Resurrection is this: The view that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or by their close associates. This view is a minority position in modern New Testament scholarship. In reality, only evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant scholars hold this position. Even most Roman Catholic scholars, who very much believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the supernatural, and miracles, reject the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels. See this link:

    https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/

    Imagine a defense attorney appearing in court, presenting a case using minority expert opinion as a defense. The prosecution would rip his case to shreds when they demonstrate to the court that the defense attorney’s “experts” are considered to be outliers…fringe

  2. Oh, I could imagine it easily enough. I can see the other attorney questioning those experts on potential causes for bias. More to the point, I could see his closing statement: “Men and women of the jury, we have presented evidence for our claims. Our opponent has paraded a lot of people to sat that a lot of people think our view of the evidence is wrong. You now have to decide which side you are going to believe. Expert testimony is not to be discounted, but neither is the possibility of bias; and as you also know, large groups of experts have often been found to be wrong. Meanwhile you have actual evidence you can assess, evidence presented by us and by our opponents. It is your responsibility to do so. I think you’ll find there’s more than enough there for you to draw your own conclusions.”

Leave a Reply (see discussion policy in sidebar)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe

Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell

Purchase Here!

More on the book...

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy

%d bloggers like this:
Clicky