Adam Allred vs. Historic Christianity

The Christian Case — Apologetics & Doctrine

Testing the Claims: A Look at Adam Allred's Case Against Historic Christianity

A popular online voice says the Bible is a tool, not a source, and that certainty itself killed Christ. Here is what the evidence actually shows.

BY RAJKUMAR RICHARD W.J.F.

Adam Allred is an entrepreneur and influencer who leads an online fraternity called DGHBoy Nation, built around a mission to bring men back to strength and purpose.¹ He speaks often about God and says he values Scripture. But over the past several months, a series of his videos have made sweeping claims about the Bible, the crucifixion, and the nature of religious authority — claims that broke sharply from what the historic Church has always taught. Christian apologist Wes Huff responded publicly, and the exchange between the two spread widely online.²

Below are Allred's central claims, tested one at a time against the historical and biblical record.

The Claims, Tested

Claim 01

"The Bible was literally compiled hundreds of years later by a pagan emperor for political reasons... voted on by a bunch of politicians and bishops in a room."³

This claim does not survive contact with the historical timeline. All 27 books of the New Testament were written within the first century — decade(s) after Jesus, not centuries.⁴ And the Church did not wait for permission from an emperor to start using them.

Around 95 AD, a church leader named Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the church in Corinth. That letter is saturated with New Testament material: he quotes the Letter to the Hebrews repeatedly, explicitly names and quotes Paul's letter to the Corinthians, and draws on Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Titus, and 1 Timothy.⁵ Scholars who have studied the letter closely conclude he clearly had Matthew and Luke in front of him too, treating them as trustworthy accounts.⁶ That is one writer, one generation removed from the apostles, already leaning heavily on what we now call the New Testament — more than two hundred years before Constantine was born.

This pattern was not unique to Clement. Across the wider body of early Christian writing, the Gospel of Matthew alone is quoted roughly 700 times, compared with only about 16 total citations of apocryphal, non-canonical material.⁷ If the early Church were genuinely uncertain which writings were trustworthy, actual usage on the ground would look far more scattered. Instead, it shows near-total agreement, centuries before any council met.

By the 170s AD, a document called the Muratorian Fragment already lists most of the books we have today — still more than 150 years before Constantine.⁸ When the Council of Nicaea convened in 325 AD, it addressed the nature of Christ and the date of Easter. It did not vote on, or even discuss, which books belonged in Scripture.⁹ By the time Athanasius wrote out the complete list of 27 New Testament books in his Festal Letter of 367 AD, he was not inventing a canon — he was recording a consensus the Church had already lived by for generations.¹⁰

No Historical Evidence Institutionally Verified: NT Books Are 1st Century

Worth Noting Clement does not use the formal word "Scripture" for these New Testament passages the way he does for the Old Testament; he weaves the material in without a citation formula. Scholars call these "allusions" rather than direct quotations.¹¹ This is a fair distinction to hold — but it strengthens the case rather than weakening it. Even without formal citation language, the sheer density of New Testament material already shaping Christian thought this early shows how quickly these writings became central, not centuries later under imperial decree.

Claim 02

"Jesus wasn't a Christian. He was a Jew. And He didn't come to create a religion."¹²

HE was Jewish — that much is true and uncontested. But the claim that HE did not come to found anything does not match HIS own words. HE said plainly that HE came to fulfil the Law and the Prophets, not to abolish them (Matthew 5:17). HE built HIS Church on the foundation of the apostles (Matthew 16:18), instituted the Lord's Supper as an ongoing act of remembrance, and commissioned HIS followers to baptize and teach every nation (Matthew 28:19–20).

Fulfilling centuries of prophecy and establishing a covenant community that would carry HIS teaching to the world is not the opposite of religion. It is the foundation of one.

Partially True Conclusion Not Supported

Claim 03

"Theological certainty is spiritual death. It was those who claimed to know God and speak for God who ultimately crucified God's Son."¹³

This account flattens a far more complicated history. When Pilate offered the crowd a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, it was not a small circle of certain theologians who shouted for crucifixion — it was the broader crowd, driven by fear, political pressure, and disappointed expectations of what the Messiah should look like.¹⁴

It is also incorrect to paint every religious leader as HIS enemy. Nicodemus, a member of the Sanhedrin, defended HIM against unjust judgment and later helped bury HIM with honor (John 7:50–51, John 19:39). Joseph of Arimathea, another respected council member, gave up his own tomb for HIM (Mark 15:43, John 19:38). John 12:42 records that many priests and Pharisees believed in HIM, even if quietly, out of fear of social consequences.

These leaders held real theological certainty — and it led them to discipleship, not violence. What actually drove the crucifixion was pride and the fear of losing power and status, not certainty about God itself.

Documented: Crowd Involvement Oversimplified Conclusion

Claim 04

The Bible was "written, rewritten, translated, re-translated, filtered through kings, priests and politicians."¹⁵

There is a kernel of truth here wrapped in an exaggerated conclusion. Manuscripts were copied by hand. Copying mistakes did happen. Differences between manuscripts do exist. Translations do vary. Christian scholars do not hide any of this.

But none of it proves we cannot know what the original writers said. This is precisely why the discipline of "Textual Criticism" exists — scholars compare thousands of manuscripts against one another to reconstruct, with very high confidence, the earliest attainable text. According to textual critics, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. Having minor variation between copies is an entirely different thing from having no reliable text at all. Textual variation is not textual chaos.

Documented: Manuscript Variants Exist Conclusion Overstated

Claim 05

The Bible has been "argued over by 45,000 different Christian denominations who all swear they're the ones who are right."¹⁶

This is a rhetorically strong line, but a weak argument. Interpretive disagreement does not prove a source is unclear or unintelligible — people disagree about constitutional law, science, economics, and history too, and nobody concludes from that disagreement that the underlying documents don't exist or contain no meaningful content.

The "45,000" figure itself is also commonly misleading, since different counting methods lump together individual congregations, denominational families, and loosely connected traditions in very different ways.

Weak Argument

Claim 06

"The Bible is a tool, not the source. Dogma is a trap. Go directly to God."¹⁷

There is something worth affirming here. Christians should not worship the Bible — they worship God. If Allred is warning against turning Scripture into an idol, that concern has real merit.

But he sets up a false choice: either worship the Bible, or discard its authority. Historic Christianity has always held a third position — worship God, and trust Scripture because it is how God has revealed HIMSELF. The book is not the object of devotion, but it is not merely "a tool" either. Its authority rests entirely on who it comes from. Scripture, both the Old and the New Testaments, is inerrant (original autographs), infallible and trustworthy.

Legitimate Concern False Dichotomy

The Better Path Worship God because Scripture reveals God — not the Bible instead of God, and not God instead of Scripture.

Claim 07

Go "directly to God" rather than relying on Scripture, tradition, or trained teachers.

This sounds spiritually attractive, but it runs into an unavoidable problem: how do we know it is actually God speaking, and not simply our own impressions? If everyone "goes directly to God," we immediately run into contradictory claims — one person says God confirmed reincarnation, another says God confirmed the resurrection, another says God denied Christ's divinity entirely, another says there is no personal God at all. Private spiritual experience cannot, by itself, settle which of these is objectively true.

This is exactly why Christianity does not simply say "seek God." It says God has revealed HIMSELF — and that revelation becomes the standard by which subjective spiritual impressions are tested, rather than the other way around. Scripture, both the Old and the New Testaments, is absolutely infallible and trustworthy.

Epistemologically Unstable

Claim 08

A broader appeal to intellectual humility — skepticism toward anyone claiming certainty, particularly credentialed experts.

There is a healthy instinct buried in this. Christianity does not require intellectual arrogance, and humility is a genuine virtue. But there is a real difference between humility and skepticism. Humility says: "I might be wrong, so I should examine the evidence carefully." Skepticism says: "Nobody can really know anything, so certainty itself is suspect."

The first keeps a person honest and teachable. The second collapses under its own weight — if someone insists "you cannot know anything with certainty," the fair question to ask is simply: "are you certain of that?"

Admirable Instinct Self-Defeating When Absolute

The Bottom Line

Adam Allred raises fair concerns about pride, legalism, and turning Scripture itself into an idol — these are real struggles that have appeared throughout Christian history and deserve honest attention.¹⁸ But when those concerns turn into historical claims about how the Bible was formed, or philosophical claims about certainty and private revelation, the argument breaks down against the actual evidence. His call to simply "go directly to God" ends up quietly placing his own personal interpretation in the seat of final authority — the very outcome he says he is trying to avoid.

Endnotes

1. Adam Allred is described as the founder of DGHBoy Nation, an online community focused on masculinity and personal development.
2. Jacob Billings, "Adam Allred vs Wes Huff," JacobBillings.com, Nov. 23, 2025.
3. Statement made by Adam Allred in a video posted to Instagram, Nov. 3, 2025, as reported by ChurchLeaders.com, Dec. 11, 2025.
4. The dating of New Testament composition to the first century (roughly AD 45–100) is the consensus position across the range of mainstream New Testament scholarship.
5. 1 Clement, chapters 36 and 47, cited in etimasthe.com, "Clement of Rome's New Testament," 2018.
6. Ibid.
7. Statistic on Matthew citations versus apocryphal citations drawn from a presentation by Wesley Huff, cited in Engage Apologetics, "Quotes from Church History on Scripture, the Gospel & More."
8. The Muratorian Fragment is widely dated by textual scholars to the late second century (c. AD 170–200).
9. The Council of Nicaea's official concerns — the Arian controversy, the nature of Christ, and the date of Easter — are documented in the surviving conciliar record; no canonical list was addressed.
10. Athanasius, Festal Letter 39 (AD 367), the earliest surviving document to list exactly the 27 books of the New Testament.
11. Bruce Metzger's observation that Clement does not explicitly label New Testament references as "Scripture," cited via uasvbible.org, "First Epistle of Clement."
12. Statement made by Adam Allred, Nov. 3, 2025, as reported by ChurchLeaders.com.
13. Statement made by Adam Allred in a follow-up video responding to Wes Huff's critique, cited in Jacob Billings, "Adam Allred vs Wes Huff," Nov. 23, 2025.
14. The crowd's choice of Barabbas over Jesus is recorded in Matthew 27:15–23, Mark 15:6–14, Luke 23:18–23, and John 18:39–40.
15. Statement made by Adam Allred, as reported by ChurchLeaders.com, Dec. 11, 2025.
16. Ibid.
17. Statement made by Adam Allred on Threads, Nov. 3, 2025.
18. Jacob Billings, "Adam Allred vs Wes Huff," JacobBillings.com, Nov. 23, 2025.

Key Sources and Further Reading

• ChurchLeaders.com — "Wes Huff Responds to Claim the Bible Was 'Compiled Hundreds of Years' After Jesus by a 'Pagan Emperor for Political Reasons'" (Dec. 11, 2025)
• Jacob Billings — "Adam Allred vs Wes Huff," JacobBillings.com (Nov. 23, 2025)
• Etimasthe.com — "Clement of Rome's New Testament" (2018)
• BobThune.com — "The Church Fathers: Clement of Rome"
• NTCanon.org — "The Development of the Canon of the New Testament"
• Engage Apologetics — "Quotes from Church History on Scripture, the Gospel & More"
• Athanasius, Festal Letter 39 (AD 367)
• The Muratorian Fragment (c. AD 170–200), earliest known partial list of New Testament books

Written by Rajkumar Richard W.J.F. — The Christian Case

How “Undesigned Coincidences” Enhances The Reliability Of The Bible?

            Those interested in learning more about the reliability of the Bible should study the very interesting topic of “Undesigned Coincidences.”  

            Christian analytic philosopher Lydia McGrew, who has written a book entitled Hidden in Plain View, defines undesigned coincidences as, “An undesigned coincidence is a notable connection between two or more accounts or texts that doesn't seem to have been planned by the person or people giving the accounts. Despite their apparent independence, the items fit together like pieces of a puzzle.”¹

            An article in Christianity Today further explains this, “In other words, an undesigned coincidence occurs when multiple passages of Scripture include details that at first seem unrelated but which, upon further reflection, fit together in a way that only makes sense if both accounts are based on the same underlying historical truth.”²

            How do undesigned coincidences enhance the reliability of the Bible? The same article states, “Undesigned coincidences are subtle enough that it would be pointless for a fabricator to make them up. But on analysis, they provide valuable internal evidence of the reliability of the New Testament histories. The only plausible explanation for their occurrence is that the authors were carefully recording real events.”³

            Consider two examples of undesigned coincidences from the New Testament:⁴

One of the simplest coincidences concerns Herod’s reaction to the commencement of Jesus’ ministry. Matthew 14 reports that Herod “said to his attendants, ‘This is John the Baptist. He has risen from the dead!’” (v. 1). But how would Matthew know what the king said to his servants in the privacy of his palace? A skeptic might conclude that he was taking liberties with the truth.

Unless, that is, the skeptic in question happened to notice an obscure phrase in the Gospel of Luke. On a totally different topic, Luke 8 lists a number of women who were following Jesus. One of them is named as “Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household” (v. 3).

The second passage explains the first. Matthew could have known about Herod’s comment to his servants because the wife of one of those servants was a follower of Christ. And yet the connection is incredibly oblique. If the Gospels were fabricated, Luke would have had no particular reason to invent this detail. The best explanation is that the pieces fit so well because they are both true.

Another coincidence is even more striking. In John 6, Jesus asks Philip where to buy bread just prior to the miraculous feeding of the 5,000 (v. 5). Why Philip? John gives no explanation. Yet elsewhere, in unrelated passages, he does mention something that turns out to be relevant: Philip was from Bethsaida.

There is no obvious connection between these two pieces of information until one turns to the Gospel of Luke. Luke 9 notes that the feeding of the 5,000 occurred near Bethsaida (v. 10). Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread because he was a local.

If the Gospels were fabricated, there would be no particular reason for John to report that Jesus asked Philip where to buy bread. There would be no particular reason for listing Philip as a native of Bethsaida. There would be no particular reason for Luke to situate the feeding of the 5,000 near Bethsaida. Further, the details are so randomly strewn through the accounts that they are obviously not an attempt at subtle harmonization. Once again, the best explanation as to why the puzzle pieces fit so well is that they are all true.

            Undesigned coincidences are not only found in the New Testament. They are found in the Old Testament also.

            Here is one such example from an article authored by Christian Apologist Jonathan McLatchie:⁵

Why Does Ahithophel Turn on David?

2 Samuel 15 details the story of King David’s son Absalom conspiring against his own Father. In verses 7-12, we read,

And at the end of four years Absalom said to the king, “Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I lived at Geshur in Aram, saying, ‘If the Lord will indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will offer worship to the Lord.’” The king said to him, “Go in peace.” So he arose and went to Hebron. But Absalom sent secret messengers throughout all the tribes of Israel, saying, “As soon as you hear the sound of the trumpet, then say, ‘Absalom is king at Hebron!’” With Absalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem who were invited guests, and they went in their innocence and knew nothing. And while Absalom was offering the sacrifices, he sent for Ahithophel the Gilonite, David’s counselor, from his city Giloh. And the conspiracy grew strong, and the people with Absalom kept increasing.

In verse 12, Absalom sends for Ahithophel, David’s counselor. Who is this man, Ahithophel? According to 2 Samuel 16:23:

Now in those days the counsel that Ahithophel gave was as if one consulted the word of God; so was all the counsel of Ahithophel esteemed, both by David and by Absalom.

Ahithophel, then, was the most trusted adviser to King David. Why, then, did Absalom count on Ahithophel to join him in conspiring against the King?

In 2 Samuel 23, in a completely unrelated part of the text, we have an important clue. Verses 24-39 list the thirty-seven body guards of King David. In verse 39, we have a familiar name – Uriah the Hittite, the husband of Bathsheba. Another individual mentioned is Eliam the son of Ahithophel the Gilonite (verse 34). This means that Ahithophel’s son was a colleague of Uriah the Hittite.

It gets even more interesting when we look over at 2 Samuel 11, in which we read of David’s adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah the Hittite. Here is what we read in verses 2-3:

It happened, late one afternoon, when David arose from his couch and was walking on the roof of the king’s house, that he saw from the roof a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful. And David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?

Thus, it appears that Bathsheba was the the granddaughter of Ahithophel, David’s counselor, and her father Eliam himself was among the King’s body guards along with Bathsheba’s husband Uriah. This then explains why Absalom in chapter 15 expected Ahithophel to be ready to conspire against King David and why Ahithophel joined Absalom’s rebellion. He wanted revenge on David for what he had done to Bathsheba and Uriah.

But it gets even more interesting. Flip over to chapter 16 and verses 20-22:

Then Absalom said to Ahithophel, “Give your counsel. What shall we do?” Ahithophel said to Absalom, “Go in to your father’s concubines, whom he has left to keep the house, and all Israel will hear that you have made yourself a stench to your father, and the hands of all who are with you will be strengthened.” So they pitched a tent for Absalom on the roof. And Absalom went in to his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.

Why do they pitch a tent for Absalom on the roof so that he can sleep with his father’s concubines? It was on the roof that David’s eye first caught Bathsheba bathing, resulting in his adulterous affair and his murder of her husband Uriah. Her grandfather Ahithophel then seeks revenge, and so encourages Absalom to sleep with his father’s concubines on the roof of the palace.

Now, note that it was only by putting together different, seemingly unrelated, parts of the text that we were able to arrive at these explanations. Nowhere in Scripture is it explicitly spelled out that Ahithophel was the grandfather of Bathsheba. Rather, one has to do detective work in order to see beneath the surface what exactly is going on here.

This is not the sort of pattern that one might expect in stories of myth and legend. Rather, it is the hallmark of truth.

Endnotes:

¹https://seanmcdowell.org/blog/unique-evidence-for-the-new-testament-interview-with-lydia-mcgrew-about-unintended-coincidences-1

²https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2017/august-web-only/defending-accuracy-of-scripture-one-coincidence-at-time.html

³Ibid.

⁴Ibid.

⁵https://jonathanmclatchie.com/undesigned-coincidences-in-the-scriptures-an-argument-for-their-veracity-part-1-old-testament-examples/ 

Websites last accessed on 13^th June 2022.

Five Credible Reasons To Believe The New Testament

             Find below five credible reasons to believe the New Testament.

            1. Internal Evidence: The New Testament claims to be truthful and factual (Luke 1:1-4; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1).

            2. External Evidence: Archaeology affirms the New Testament. There is ample evidence to corroborate the credibility of the New Testament. A recent discovery (in December 2021) of a 2000-year-old second synagogue that may have been visited by the Lord Jesus is a classic case in point.¹

            3. Confirmation by Eyewitnesses: Another instance is that of Apostle Paul’s affirmation of Jesus’ resurrection, “...historians trust that Apostle Paul preserved an oral tradition about Christ’s resurrection that goes back to the early Christian church or the Jerusalem apostles, who were eyewitnesses to Christ’s resurrection. Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church narrates Christ’s resurrection from the perspective of the eyewitnesses and also as a written record of Christ’s resurrection closer to the time of Christ’s resurrection, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” (1 Corinthians 15: 3-7, NIV, Emphasis Mine).”²

            4. Criterion of Embarrassment: “If a report in the Gospels provides data that would have been embarrassing to the early Christian movement, we can have more confidence that the event had occurred, since it is unlikely that the author would have invented content likely to detract from the cause for which he wrote. This is called the criterion of embarrassment. For example, Mark reports that Peter rebuked Jesus and that Jesus in turn rebuked Peter, calling him “Satan” (Mark 8:31-33). Since Peter was a leader of the Jerusalem church, it seems unlikely that the early Christians would have invented and preserved a tradition that casts him in such an unfavorable manner.”³

            5. Criterion of Unsympathetic Sources: “If a source that is unsympathetic or even hostile toward the Christian faith provides a report that agrees with the Christian reports, we can have more confidence that the event had occurred, since the unsympathetic or hostile source would not have the bias carried by the authors of the Christian reports. This is called the criterion of unsympathetic sources. For example, Tacitus referred to Christianity as an evil and mischievous superstition (Annals 15.44). This identifies him as an unsympathetic source. So, when he reports Jesus’s execution by Pontius Pilate, a report entirely compatible with what we find in the Gospels, historians can have more confidence that the event had occurred.”⁴

            “Unsympathetic or hostile non-Christian sources have affirmed the following about Jesus Christ:

            1. Christ’s miraculous birth.

            2. Christ’s claim to be God and the Messiah.

            3. Christ performed the miraculous.

            4. Jesus was persecuted by the Jews.

            5. Jesus’ gory death through crucifixion.

            6. The empty tomb.

            7. Jesus’ resurrection, postmortem appearances to HIS disciples, and ascension.

            8. Disciples’ martyrdom.

            9. Early Christians’ regular worship. 

            Does the skeptic need more proof than this to believe in the existence of Jesus Christ? If after learning this information, if the skeptic refuses to believe in the Historical Jesus, then it seems that the skeptic is dishonest in his search for truth.”⁵

Endnotes:

¹https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2022/01/five-significant-biblical.html

²https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2016/03/why-should-we-believe-christs.html

³https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2020/02/reasons-for-existence-of-historical.html

⁴Ibid.

⁵Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 27^th February 2022.

Five Significant Biblical Archaeological Discoveries Of 2021

            Every year the Bible’s credibility/trustworthiness is further augmented by archaeological discoveries. These are five significant biblical archaeological discoveries of the year 2021:

1. Second Synagogue in Magdala (December 2021)

            A second 2000-year-old synagogue was discovered late last year. Biblical archaeologists consider it plausible that this synagogue could have been visited by the Lord Jesus!¹ If so, this discovery affirms the ministry of the Lord Jesus as stated in Matthew 9:35.²

            This synagogue is located at Migdal (or its ancient name Magdala), which is also the birthplace and the hometown of Mary Magdalene.³

2. Gideon’s Jug (July 2021)

            A fragment of a pottery jug dated 1100 years before Christ was discovered in July 2021, “An ostracon (a pottery sherd with writing) bearing the name Jerubbaal, has been unearthed at Khirbat er-Ra‘I, located near the ancient city of Lachish. Jerubbaal (“Let Baal contend against him”) was the nickname that Gideon was given after he destroyed the altar of Baal (Judges 6:32). The ostracon dates to the 12th-11th century BC (ie. the time of the Judges) based on typology and radiocarbon dating from organic samples taken from the same archaeological layer in which it was found. The name Jerubbaal is only ever used for Gideon in the Bible, and this is the first discovery of it in an archaeological context.”⁴

            This jug need not necessarily belong to the biblical Gideon because Gideon lived 100 years prior to the dating of this jug.⁵ “Regardless, this discovery is significant in that it affirms the name Jerubbaal was used during the time the Bible describes.”⁶

3. Dead Sea Fragments (March 2021)

            Additional Dead Sea Scroll parchments were discovered for the first time in almost 60 years! These parchments included verses from Zechariah 8:16-17 and Nahum 1:5-6 written in ancient Greek. This discovery was significant because of the presence of “two interesting aspects: (1) A special treatment for the Tetragrammaton (the transliteration of the Hebrew name of God in four letters YHWH), and (2) Evidence of changing words to improve a new translation.⁷

4. Sandstone Inscription of the Egyptian Pharaoh Hophra (June 2021)

            “A stela naming the Egyptian Pharaoh Wahibre (known as Hophra in Hebrew, Apries in Greek) was recently found by a farmer who was cultivating his field; he immediately turned it over to the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities... The Bible records that King Zedekiah rebelled against the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar (Ez 17:15), who had placed him on the throne (2 Kgs 24:15-17), and turned to Egypt for help. Hophra’s army marched to Zedekiah’s aid, and Nebuchadnezzar’s army withdrew from attacking Jerusalem (Jer. 37:5-8). It will be interesting to see if the recently-discovered stele of Hophra is related to this campaign. Pharaoh Hophra is mentioned by name in Jeremiah 44:30, which reads, “This is what the LORD says: ‘I am going to hand Pharaoh Hophra king of Egypt over to his enemies who seek his life, just as I handed Zedekiah king of Judah over to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, the enemy who was seeking his life.’”  It should be noted that, the stela was discovered in Ismailia, Egypt, only 29 miles south of the ancient city of Taphanhes, where Jeremiah had been taken (Jer. 43:6-7) and from where he made the prophecy against Pharaoh Hophra (Jer. 44:1).”⁸

5. Missing Wall of Biblical Jerusalem (July 2021)

            The “Israel Antiquities Authority announced the groundbreaking discovery of the eastern section of Jerusalem’s Iron Age wall. The wall, stretching along the eastern slope of the Kidron Valley, was uncovered in the City of David Archaeological Park, a short distance from the Temple Mount. Stamps seals and other objects found along the wall allowed the excavators to date the wall to the Iron Age, indicating that it was likely part of the fortifications built by King Hezekiah (Isaiah 22:9), as he prepared for the Assyrian invasion (c. 701 B.C.E.). This also would have been the very same wall that was ultimately destroyed during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem about a century later (2 Kings 25:10).”⁹  This discovery “conclusively proves that Jerusalem was strongly fortified during the time of the kings of Judah.”¹⁰

ENDNOTES:

¹https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/december/biblical-archaeology-top-10-discoveries-new-artifacts-2021.html

²https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/12/28/top-ten-discoveries-in-biblical-archaeology-in-2021/

³https://www.timesofisrael.com/second-ancient-synagogue-found-in-migdal-alters-ideas-of-jewish-life-2000-years-ago/

⁴https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/12/28/top-ten-discoveries-in-biblical-archaeology-in-2021/

⁵https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/december/biblical-archaeology-top-10-discoveries-new-artifacts-2021.html

⁶https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/12/28/top-ten-discoveries-in-biblical-archaeology-in-2021/

⁷https://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.com/2021/05/latest-dead-sea-scrolls-discovery-what.html

⁸https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2021/12/28/top-ten-discoveries-in-biblical-archaeology-in-2021/

⁹https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/missing-wall-of-biblical-jerusalem-discovered/

¹⁰https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/2021s-top-ten-stories-in-bhd/

Websites last accessed on 12^th January 2022. 

The Red Letter Words In The Bible Are Not The Words Of Jesus!

            For quite some time I believed that the red letter words are the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. But when I came to understand that these words may not be the exact words of Jesus, I was disappointed.

            Two questions are in order: (1) Is it certain that the red letter words are not the words of Jesus?  (2) If so, how does it impact our faith in the Lord Jesus?

            First, how do we know for certain that the red letter words may not be the words of the Lord Jesus?

            New Testament scholar, Daniel B. Wallace claims that the red letter words may not be the words of the Lord Jesus, “Scholars are not sure of the exact words of Jesus. Ancient historians were concerned to get the gist of what someone said, but not necessarily the exact wording. A comparison of parallel passages in the Synoptic Gospels reveals that the evangelists didn’t always record Jesus’ words exactly the same way. The terms ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox are used to distinguish the kinds of dominical sayings we have in the Gospels. The former means ‘the very words,’ and the latter means ‘the very voice.’ That is, the exact words or the essential thought. There have been attempts to harmonize these accounts, but they are highly motivated by a theological agenda which clouds one’s judgment and skews the facts. In truth, though red-letter editions of the Bible may give comfort to believers that they have the very words of Jesus in every instance, this is a false comfort.” ¹

            Dr. William Lane Craig believes that every serious student of the Gospels should avoid the use of the red letter editions of the Gospels. He writes:²

The Gospels were written in Greek, but Jesus taught in Aramaic. So even a red letter edition of the Greek New Testament would not give us the actual words of Jesus.

Granted, Jesus probably spoke Greek, at least enough to get by in his trade as a carpenter, since Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire, as a result of the pre-Roman conquests by Alexander the Great. Even though the Romans spoke Latin, in their dealings with Palestinians, they probably conversed in Greek—hence, the arresting centurion’s question to Paul: “Do you know Greek?” (Acts 21.37).

But in teaching his fellow Jews Jesus would naturally have spoken Aramaic. So what we have in the Gospels are Greek translations of what Jesus claimed and taught. Only rarely do we get glimpses of the original Aramaic words spoken by Jesus, as for example, Jesus’ words from the cross given in Mark: “At the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?’ which means, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’” (Mark 15.34).

Moreover, we need to keep in mind that in a culture that lacked even the device of quotation marks, the distinction between direct and indirect discourse can be blurred. Read the account of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John’s Gospel 3.10-21, ignoring the quotation marks introduced by the English translators, and ask yourself where John’s direct quotation of Jesus ends and John’s commentary begins. Or read Galatians 2.11-21 about Paul’s public dispute with Peter and ask yourself where Paul stops recording what he said at the time and begins his present reflections upon what happened. It’s not clear. So in a culture where the distinction between direct and indirect discourse is not always clear, giving a paraphrase or the gist of what a person said rather than his very words is perfectly acceptable.

The Gospel writers employed common techniques of their day in giving the teachings of Jesus, such as paraphrase, summary, omission, clarification, contextualization, and so on.

So it’s very misleading to print Jesus’ words in red, as though we have the original words of Jesus recorded there.

What we want to show is that the Gospel writers gave an accurate representation of what Jesus of Nazareth said and taught. This is where New Testament historical-critical scholarship can be helpful. Scholars will sometimes say that in a particular teaching attributed to Jesus, we hear the very voice of Jesus (ipsissima vox); that is to say, something that renders very closely (in Greek) what Jesus said. His teaching on the Kingdom of God would be a good example. Everyone recognizes that the proclamation of the coming of God’s Kingdom or reign lay at the heart of the teaching of Jesus. On other occasions, scholars think that we have the very words (ipsissima verba) of Jesus, that is, a Greek expression that translates almost verbatim what Jesus said. His use of the expression “the Son of Man” as a term of self-reference would be a good example. Instances of this sort would have the best claim to be printed in red; but then we artificially mar the Gospels by such a device...

The use of red letter editions of the Gospels ought to be shunned by serious students of the Gospels, since the device is fundamentally misleading as to the nature of the Gospel accounts.

            It is now clear that the red letter words need not necessarily be the very words of the Lord Jesus.

            Second, how does this impact my faith?

            Although I was disappointed that the red letter words may not be the very words of our Lord Jesus, I am thankful to the New Testament scholars for their integrity and honesty in reporting the truth.

            We may not possess the original writings of the Biblical authors (the autographs). But we possess an embarrassment of riches of the New Testament manuscripts. The field of Textual Criticism offers us a way to retrieve the writings of the autographs from the available manuscripts. Thereby, we understand that the Bible we have is the same as that of the autographs (99.5% pure and without any doctrinal distortion). Thus we are confident of the reliability of the New Testament.

            The fact that the Bible is reliable and that it records the very thoughts or the very voice of Jesus offers me the greatest confidence and comfort. The icing on the cake would have been the authenticity of the red letter words. But it does not matter!

Endnotes:

¹https://danielbwallace.com/2012/10/08/fifteen-myths-about-bible-translation/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/red-letter-gospels

Websites last accessed on 13^th November 2021.

 

Newsweek Assaults the Bible – Understanding The Assault, God & Church’s Response

            If there are no tirades against Christianity during the days surrounding the Christian holy events – Christmas and Easter, we may as well wonder what’s happening in the opposite camp. However, these melodramatic rants against Christianity will gradually lose its impact, because it is old wine in a new bottle.

            So we have a similar tirade against Christianity. This in the form of an 8,487 word article discrediting the Bible, ‘The Bible: So Misunderstood It's a Sin’ by Kurt Eichenwald and published by Newsweek, on December 23^rd 2014.¹ 

Realizing God’s Beauty During Assaults against Christianity

            When Newsweek’s article was published, a specific group of our non-Christian friends joyfully propagated the article in social media. Consider this please, why do they seize the liberty to joyfully discredit the Bible, while they, by the same token, do not allow the world to criticize their holy book?

            Isn’t this an interesting hypocrisy? This is akin to maligning our reputation at their will and pleasure but preventing others to examine their credentials despite it being in a questionable state altogether.

            Whatever the case may be, this is a wonderful opportunity to realize the beauty of the God of the Bible.

            If God has offered freewill to man, then by the same token, man could abuse God using that very freewill. In this context, it’s valid that God be at the receiving end of man’s disbelief and criticisms. Disbelief and abuse of the Creator God are the ramifications of man’s freewill especially in the context of a world inundated in evil and sin.

            God by virtue of granting freewill to man would necessarily invite abuses upon HIMSELF and would graciously understand the abuse. If God is loving and just, then HE would not prohibit the unbelieving man use his freewill to abuse HIM. (Prohibiting man to employ his freewill is a negation of freewill.)

            This is how God’s beauty is revealed. God would not obstruct man’s freewill, since salvation is predicated on man’s freewill. While man employs his freewill to abuse God, it is by the same freewill man could repent of his sins and believe in God.

            Therefore, if God silences man from abusing HIM, HE cannot be loving, just and salvific in this context. God, who prevents man from abusing HIM, albeit for a finite period of time, cannot be God. Instead, that god could only be a mere illusory figure concocted by man.

Motive Behind Assaults Against Christianity

            Newsweek’s allegations against Christianity are unscrupulously the same old. These so-called allegations have been adequately and reasonably answered a jillion times over and again by eminent Christian scholars.

            However, there is no scarcity of Christian response to Newsweek’s tirade against Christianity. Eichenwald’s allegations have been systematically debunked.² Although the most appropriate response would be that of Billy Madison’s:

            The motive of these assaults against Christianity is to rattle the faith of an immature Christian.

            The antagonist desires to prove the Bible as a fairytale. If the Bible is proven as corrupt and inherently false, then the Christian has nothing to anchor his faith on.

            If there is no Bible, then there is no triune God or the Lord Jesus, whom the Bible reveals. If there is no Jesus, there is no salvation through HIS sacrifice. Hence those who lose faith in Christ remain clueless; clueless as to their origin, purpose and destiny.

            Any Christian who has studied the Bible and the other theistic worldviews would conclusively assert the utmost coherency of the Christian worldview. In comparison, the other monotheistic and pantheistic worldviews remain largely incoherent, especially from within the realms of God & salvation, man’s origin, purpose and destiny. 

            So if one were to depart from faith in Christ, he would wallow under the weight of the incoherency of the other worldviews that he would be artificially incubated in an apparently peaceful situation that even a feeble impairment to his wellness would destroy his inner peace completely and thus his soul (Cf. Isaiah 48: 22).

            If one were to disbelieve the Bible, do we really think we can earn or work our way to our salvation? Do we think that chanting [sacred texts] and/or charity would fetch us heaven? No.

            Our sins in thoughts, words, and deeds far outweigh our potential and maximal goodness. Thus no amount of good works would fetch us heaven. That good works would fetch us salvation is an untenable state or a mere illusion.

            So if it’s not Jesus then its despair. Despair / hopelessness or illusion would be the mainstay of a person without Christ. This is precisely where the adverse propagandas against Christianity intend to drive the faltering Christians to.

            But the fact remains that outside of Christianity there is no truth, especially a coherent one at that.

Target Audience Behind The Assaults Against Christianity

            Who’s more likely to be rattled by such adverse propagandas against Christianity?

            Newsweek provides us the answer, “…Their lack of knowledge about the Bible is well established. A Pew Research poll in 2010 found that evangelicals ranked only a smidgen higher than atheists in familiarity with the New Testament and Jesus’s teachings. “Americans revere the Bible—but, by and large, they don’t read it,’’ wrote George Gallup Jr. and Jim Castelli, pollsters and researchers whose work focused on religion in the United States.”^C

            We should be aware of the aesthetic Christians. These Christians do not expend time or energy to wrestle with the biblical text to unravel and assimilate the timeless truths of the Bible. Their prayer is but a selfish rant meticulously devoid of listening to God. Instead they love to attend the church regularly in their best attire, so much so their focus is more on the regularity of attendance and in beautifying themselves for a mass acceptance than attending the church to increase their love for God by worshipping HIM in spirit and in truth.

            This group would indeed be rattled.

            But then there is a quantum of solace for this group. That quantum of solace is predicated on the age of the Christian belonging to this group. 

            Are these adverse propagandas aimed against the older Christians (e.g. in the age group of 50++ years)? I don’t think so. Majority of these older Christians wouldn’t possibly read these articles.

            Even if they read, they would discard these articles because their faith in historic Christianity is predicated upon fear and reverence for God. In other words, they would dare not question the Bible.

            These assaults then are aimed against the younger Christians. This group thinks through their heart and not their head. This is the feeling culture and not the thinking culture per se.

            The younger Christian is more likely to be impacted by the adverse propagandas against Christianity unless the contemporary Christian leadership offers reasonable answers to the questions of this age-group.

            Answers refuting these so-called allegations are available in the public domain, but the younger Christians either don’t believe in extensive reading and understanding or they read and strive to understand, but have questions for which they desire personal answers.

Is The Local Church Ready To Engage Objections Against Christianity?

            A few germane questions should be asked:

            A. Is [the leadership of] the local church able to answer the questions disputing Christianity?

            B. Is [the leadership of] the local church aware of the sources that debunk such adverse propagandas so to refer them to the seeking / questioning Christian? (It’s not to shoo away the questioning Christian to these public domains as if to release themselves from the responsibility or burden of answering these questions. But [the leadership of] the local church should handhold the seeking or questioning Christian through the process of solidifying his belief in Christ and in the Bible.)

            C. Would [the leadership of] the local church encourage questions about Christianity / Bible from their worshippers?   

            It’s OK to question the Bible albeit honestly so to earnestly seek God. In fact, Christians should utilize these assaults against Christianity to help motivate the younger generation Christians to be deeply rooted in Christ and the Bible.

            Perfect peace is only possible when a person is in Christ. Each day will have its troubles, and often these troubles appear in the guise of these assaults against Christianity.

            These attacks, as emphasized before, should motivate Christians to rely more on Christ, for it is only in Christ there is salvation and accompanying that salvation is the true, unhindered and everlasting peace. This is precisely what the Lord Jesus said, “…so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” (John 16: 33, NIV, Emphasis Mine).

            It’s only in Christ we have salvation and true peace. So allow these assaults against Christianity to get you closer to the Lord Jesus and to God’s words in the Bible. The Spirit of Jesus will draw you closer to HIM, but only if you believe, love and follow HIM. I pray that Jesus would have HIS way in you. Amen.

Endnotes:

¹ http://www.newsweek.com/2015/01/02/thats-not-what-bible-says-294018.html

² Debunking Newsweek’s article: 

Please read these Christian responses that debunk Newsweek’s article:

http://danielbwallace.com/2014/12/28/predictable-christmas-fare-newsweeks-tirade-against-the-bible/

http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/12/29/newsweek-on-the-bible-so-misrepresented-its-a-sin/

http://michaeljkruger.com/a-christmas-present-from-the-mainstream-media-newsweek-takes-a-desperate-swipe-at-the-integrity-of-the-bible-part-1/

http://michaeljkruger.com/a-christmas-gift-from-the-mainstream-media-newsweek-takes-a-desperate-swipe-at-the-integrity-of-the-bible-part-2/

26 Mistakes in Newsweek's Article About the Bible: http://onyxkylix.blogspot.in/2015/01/the-bible-so-mispresented-its-sin-26.html