First Century Skeptics had no Answer...

[OneFollowingHim]

"Why did the writers appeal to eyewitness testimony? The reason was that many people who knew Jesus or had observed His miracles were still alive when the New Testament was written. Since many of these people were hostile to Christianity, they had every opportunity to publicly refute the apostles’ accounts. And yet, in the case of the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, not a single piece of contrary historical evidence surfaced during the first century to claim these events were false. The enemies of Christianity could not refute the Gospels’ accounts, which is convincing attestation that the New Testament documents are historically reliable."

<emphasis added>

Story, Dan: Defending Your Faith. Grand Rapids, MI : Kregel Publications, 1997, S. 44


This is irrefutable evidence for the reliability of the New Testament. Eyewitness tesitmony recorded without any refutation during the time when those who would be best suited to respond. They did not. All contempories of Jesus who lived during His "birth, ministry, death, and resurrection" were left silenced.

The bible confirms itself. There was eyewitness testimony of not only those who believe Jesus' claims, but also of those who did not. This confirms it so...

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: aJesus the Nazarene, ba man 1attested to you by God with 2miracles and cwonders and 3signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— <emphasis added>

aActs 3:6; 4:10; 10:38

bJohn 3:2

1Or exhibited or accredited

2Or works of power

cJohn 4:48; Acts 2:19, 43

3Or attesting miracles


New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Ac 2:22

[shunyadragon]

"Why did the writers appeal to eyewitness testimony? The reason was that many people who knew Jesus or had observed His miracles were still alive when the New Testament was written. Since many of these people were hostile to Christianity, they had every opportunity to publicly refute the apostles’ accounts. And yet, in the case of the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, not a single piece of contrary historical evidence surfaced during the first century to claim these events were false. The enemies of Christianity could not refute the Gospels’ accounts, which is convincing attestation that the New Testament documents are historically reliable."

<emphasis added>

Story, Dan: Defending Your Faith. Grand Rapids, MI : Kregel Publications, 1997, S. 44


This is irrefutable evidence for the reliability of the New Testament. Eyewitness tesitmony recorded without any refutation during the time when those who would be best suited to respond. They did not. All contempories of Jesus who lived during His "birth, ministry, death, and resurrection" were left silenced.

The bible confirms itself. There was eyewitness testimony of not only those who believe Jesus' claims, but also of those who did not. This confirms it so...

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: aJesus the Nazarene, ba man 1attested to you by God with 2miracles and cwonders and 3signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— <emphasis added>

aActs 3:6; 4:10; 10:38

bJohn 3:2

1Or exhibited or accredited

2Or works of power

cJohn 4:48; Acts 2:19, 43

3Or attesting miracles


New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Ac 2:22




Other than a few scrapes of scripture possibly dated quite late in the first century there is no record either way on the historicity of the life, works and claims of Christ.

[OneFollowingHim]

Other than a few scrapes of scripture possibly dated quite late in the first century there is no record either way on the historicity of the life, works and claims of Christ.

But then the New Testament has better support for authenticity than every other work from antiquity. I suspect most would object to the claims given there.

[FreezBee]

But then the New Testament has better support for authenticity than every other work from antiquity. I suspect most would object to the claims given there.

Yes, the NT has indeed better support for authenticity than every other work from antiquity - which only means that we can be more sure that it is from antiquity - which only means that we can be more sure that it is antiquated. Do you dress like they did in antiquity? If not, why do you then read like they did in antiquity?

- FreezBee

[OneFollowingHim]

Yes, the NT has indeed better support for authenticity than every other work from antiquity - which only means that we can be more sure that it is from antiquity - which only means that we can be more sure that it is antiquated. Do you dress like they did in antiquity? If not, why do you then read like they did in antiquity?

- FreezBee

Actually what work from antiquity means is something recorded in the past and that with careful study, the copies we now have accurately represent what was recorded. And what was recorded represents what really happened. Just like any historical person, Jesus lived and portions of His life were written down. If you want to deny that, you have to tell us why.

[FreezBee]

Actually what work from antiquity means is something recorded in the past and that with careful study, the copies we now have accurately represent what was recorded. And what was recorded represents what really happened. Just like any historical person, Jesus lived and portions of His life were written down. If you want to deny that, you have to tell us why.

Oh, I'm not denying that - only that you made a good cause for it :teeth:

- FreezBee

[zorathruster]

"This is irrefutable evidence for the reliability of the New Testament. Eyewitness tesitmony recorded without any refutation during the time when those who would be best suited to respond. They did not. All contempories of Jesus who lived during His "birth, ministry, death, and resurrection" were left silenced.


Well using this logic, there are no literary works refuting the beliefs and assertions of the Raelians here in our time, therefore the Raelians must be irrefutably correct also.

[s1mpleton]

Interesting...

http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/... (http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_christian/_articles/authenticity_of_the_bible.htm)

Just taking a gander at the chart should be cause enough to raise an eyebrow, even in the most devoted athiest. This isn't the be-all-end-all by any means; but I thought it an interesting observation viable for consideration in this thread.

[OneFollowingHim]

Well using this logic, there are no literary works refuting the beliefs and assertions of the Raelians here in our time, therefore the Raelians must be irrefutably correct also.

Unlike the fulfilled prophecy in the New Testament, I suppose when the Raelians show up and a bunch of previously spoken claims (prophecy) are fulfilled in their appearing, then irrefutability would be an option. Did you read Acts 2:22?

Plus you have this...




3 For aI delivered to you 1as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died bfor our sins caccording to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was araised on the third day baccording to the Scriptures,
5 and that aHe appeared to bCephas, then cto the twelve.
6 After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some ahave fallen asleep;
7 then He appeared to 1aJames, then to ball the apostles;
8 and last of all, as 1to one untimely born, aHe appeared to me also.
[/url]a 1 Cor 11:23

1 Lit among the first

b John 1:29; Gal 1:4; Heb 5:1, 3; 1 Pet 2:24

c Is 53:5–12; Matt 26:24; Luke 24:25–27; Acts 8:32f; 17:2f; 26:22

a Matt 16:21; John 2:20ff; Acts 2:24

b Ps 16:8ff; Acts 2:31; 26:22f

a Luke 24:34

b 1 Cor 1:12

c Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36; John 20:19

a Acts 7:60; 1 Cor 15:18, 20

1 Or Jacob

a Acts 12:17

b Luke 24:33, 36f; Acts 1:3f

1 Lit to an untimely birth

a Acts 9:3–8; 22:6–11; 26:12–18; 1 Cor 9:1



[url="http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1729886#_ftnref16"] (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1729886#_ftn16)New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. 1 Co 15:3




The New Testament challenged its readers to check out the claims made there.

[lao tzu]

Interesting...

http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/... (http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_christian/_articles/authenticity_of_the_bible.htm)

Just taking a gander at the chart should be cause enough to raise an eyebrow, even in the most devoted athiest. This isn't the be-all-end-all by any means; but I thought it an interesting observation viable for consideration in this thread. Yes, it's interesting, s1mpleton, though perhaps not for the reasons you assume. How closely did you examine this page before posting a link to it?

Did you fail to note how badly the commentary misrepresents the information in the given table?

From the table above, we see that the earliest existing documents concerning Roman history were found 900 years (almost 1 whole millennium!!) after the events happened, and that only 20 original copies exist.

The "table above" shows the oldest copy of Livy dates to around 900 CE, yet the commentary imagines that this represents the date the manuscript was found. Is it possible you simply failed to note this blatant error?

Consider then that the Bible manuscripts date from only 30 -150 years after they happened, and that more than 30 000 original manuscripts exist!!
Interesting indeed that the commentary should describe 30,000 copies from 300 years after the gospels were written as original manuscripts.

The copy and paste here is original to the author's own style and preference for bolding, underlining and sprinklings of color in his text, though TWeb automatically renders the author's bloody red font in blue. If this wasn't enough to convince even a questionably "devoted" atheist such as myself that these are the scribblings of a kook, allow me to refer you to his home page.

http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/


Apologies
Due to a number of death threats, I have had to alter this site quite dramatically -
I apologize to those who have come here for info that no longer exists.


This site deals with the real reason that we are on this earth.
Please visit the LIFE (http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/christianity.htm) page, it may make a difference in your life,
because it certainly did in mine.




**********************WARNING***********************
This website contains Truth & Lots of it.
If the Truth offends you, then I suggest you exit now.

**********************************************************


__________

The conclusion seems obvious to me. Your source is barking, raving, howling at the moon, certifiable loon.


As ever, Jesse

[Storico]

Hi there. :)


"Why did the writers appeal to eyewitness testimony? The reason was that many people who knew Jesus or had observed His miracles were still alive when the New Testament was written. Since many of these people were hostile to Christianity, they had every opportunity to publicly refute the apostles’ accounts. And yet, in the case of the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus, not a single piece of contrary historical evidence surfaced during the first century to claim these events were false. The enemies of Christianity could not refute the Gospels’ accounts, which is convincing attestation that the New Testament documents are historically reliable."

<emphasis added>

Story, Dan: Defending Your Faith. Grand Rapids, MI : Kregel Publications, 1997, S. 44


This is irrefutable evidence for the reliability of the New Testament. Eyewitness tesitmony recorded without any refutation during the time when those who would be best suited to respond. They did not. All contempories of Jesus who lived during His "birth, ministry, death, and resurrection" were left silenced.

I have a couple of questions for you about this post I've quoted here.

During the time of Jesus, it's certain that MANY people were witness to his public ministry. And during that time, it's just as certain that some of them disagreed with him. Of those who might have disagreed with him...

- How many of them would have been fully literate, and capable of writing their thoughts down?
- How many of them would have had any political/social clout, thus ensuring that their thoughts would be paid attention to?
- Can we be certain that first century Christians wouldn't have done everything possible to eliminate dissenting views either by conversion or by not keeping records of dissenters?

Of society generally...

- How many people WOULD have really wanted to disprove the works of Jesus, and why?


My own thoughts:

- Roman authorities and Jewish priests felt they had no reason to publicly refute what Jesus did. From their perspective, his crucifixion would have been a public denial of his capacity for miracles and divinity.
- Most people, even if they disagreed with Jesus' ministry, wouldn't likely have been literate enough or influential enough to complain publically and be heard or kept in the historical records.
- In the first century, Christianity was still organizing itself. If people hadn't directly seen Jesus or hadn't known him or hadn't met his friends, they would have taken no task with him. Christianity wasn't seen as a huge threat; dissent in general was seen as something to be eliminated -- and again, the government took that action.

I'm not sure an absence of evidence neccesarily means what a lot of people assume it does, but that's why I wanted to pose the questions above. If anyone can shed some light on this and tell me where I might be mistaken or simply dead wrong, I'd be happy to know that. :)

Thanks, and take care.

[OneFollowingHim]

- How many of them would have been fully literate, and capable of writing their thoughts down?

The problem wasn't that few could write. The problem was with that what was happening was undeniable. So the solution was to eliminate the problem rather than refute it. Consider:


45 Therefore many of the Jews who came to Mary, and saw what He had done, believed in Him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them the things which Jesus had done. (Conspiracy to Kill Jesus) 47 Therefore the chief priests and the Pharisees convened a ccouncil, and were saying, "What are we doing? For this man is performing many signs. 48 "If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation." 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all,




- How many of them would have had any political/social clout, thus ensuring that their thoughts would be paid attention to?

I think there were enough people with the power to get their points known. They just couldn't get around what was really happening.


- Can we be certain that first century Christians wouldn't have done everything possible to eliminate dissenting views either by conversion or by not keeping records of dissenters?

I'll grant that is might be possible that some dissenting views could be contained. But is is not reasonable to think with the changes that resulted with the life and miracles and real things exhibited in Jesus' life that ALL disssenting views could be so contained, especially if Jesus and the things he did were false.


Of society generally...

- How many people WOULD have really wanted to disprove the works of Jesus, and why?

The religious leaders of the time CERTAINLY wanted to silence the Man. The killed him not for anything He did wrong, but for what He did they didn't like. They couldn't refute Him or anything written about Him. Their only option was to get rid of Him.



My own thoughts:

- Roman authorities and Jewish priests felt they had no reason to publicly refute what Jesus did. From their perspective, his crucifixion would have been a public denial of his capacity for miracles and divinity.
- Most people, even if they disagreed with Jesus' ministry, wouldn't likely have been literate enough or influential enough to complain publically and be heard or kept in the historical records.
- In the first century, Christianity was still organizing itself. If people hadn't directly seen Jesus or hadn't known him or hadn't met his friends, they would have taken no task with him. Christianity wasn't seen as a huge threat; dissent in general was seen as something to be eliminated -- and again, the government took that action.

I'm not sure an absence of evidence neccesarily means what a lot of people assume it does, but that's why I wanted to pose the questions above. If anyone can shed some light on this and tell me where I might be mistaken or simply dead wrong, I'd be happy to know that. :)

Thanks, and take care.

It's not so much the absence of evidnece of something false. It's the absence of evidence refuting the claims because they are real and true. Even the influential men alive at the time knew of the truthfulness. They just had no refutation. That's why they had to kill Him.

[s1mpleton]

Yes, it's interesting, s1mpleton, though perhaps not for the reasons you assume. How closely did you examine this page before posting a link to it?

Did you fail to note how badly the commentary misrepresents the information in the given table?
I didn't review his page before posting the link. That is entirely my failing. I apologize.


The conclusion seems obvious to me. Your source is barking, raving, howling at the moon, certifiable loon.
My intent was simply to post the chart. I had seen the chart before in my studies but couldn't remember where. In my hurry to quickly post before I needed to leave my computer, I linked to the first search result that contained the chart. I did not read the commentary. You're assesment of the website owner's commentary as being fanatical may not be so far off the mark.

Please make a mental note that my intention is not necessarily reflected in the commentary, but just in the chart itself.

Sincerely,

s1m

[OneFollowingHim]

I didn't review his page before posting the link. That is entirely my failing. I apologize.


My intent was simply to post the chart. I had seen the chart before in my studies but couldn't remember where. In my hurry to quickly post before I needed to leave my computer, I linked to the first search result that contained the chart. I did not read the commentary. You're assesment of the website owner's commentary as being fanatical may not be so far off the mark.

Please make a mental note that my intention is not necessarily reflected in the commentary, but just in the chart itself.

Sincerely,

s1m

Don't worry s1m. The data for the New Tesatment is overwhelming.

The fact that this website says "originals" instead of "copies" doesn't overthrow the fact that there is overwhelming evidence for the New Testament writings.

Attacking the website owner is an ad hom. The informaiton is accurate when you consider the writings with us today are copies. No serious scholar doubts either their authenticity or the accurate representation of the events as the way they actually occurred. They hold up very well under the field of study known as textual criticism.

[lao tzu]

Attacking the website owner is an ad hom. The informaiton is accurate when you consider the writings with us today are copies. No serious scholar doubts either their authenticity or the accurate representation of the events as the way they actually occurred. They hold up very well under the field of study known as textual criticism. Greetings, OFH,

The website owner deliberately misrepresented the information already misrepresented in his chart. To describe his information as "accurate" is to impugn your own reputation as well. Given evidence of contradiction, it is entirely appropriate to make a wider check to see if the source of these contradictions is more generally impeachable. The table in question is not sourced, forcing examination of the website author himself. Describing this as an ad hominem attack while disregarding the ad argumentum comments is dishonest.

Authenticity of the gospels is not much of an issue though there are notable variances within the texts, for example, the final passage in Mark. The actual authorship of many epistles is unknown, most notably Hebrews, but also the pastorals.

But the accuracy of the representation of many events is highly suspect. There are no witnesses to the temptation of Jesus following his baptism by John. The gospel accounts contradict themselves at this point, with one detailing an ambiguous "40 days" — generally read as a long period of time — spent in the desert where another has him gathering apostles the very next day.

To say that no serious scholar doubts the authenticity of these events may play well with the choir, but it only emphasizes the link between faith and a need to deny reality that serves to drive thinking people out of your churches. It is the same "praise the lord and blast the evolution" disconnect from scholarship responsible for the dreadful skew toward poor educational attainment prevalent in the more fundamentalist brands of christianity.

If we cannot trust you to speak reliably about things we can examine directly, we cannot trust you to speak reliably about the theology underlying your faith.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

Please make a mental note that my intention is not necessarily reflected in the commentary, but just in the chart itself.

Sincerely,

s1m Thank you, s1mpleton,

Retracting errors is as highly laudable as attempts to deny them are worthy of anathema. It remains to either withdraw the reference entirely or to provide a more reliable link.

Still, I do not see any probitive value in the number of extant copies of mss. More, this comparison of historicity with Caesar is biased by looking only at mss. evidence. For the Caesars we have independent evidence in the coinage and monuments that date to their reigns, along with the cities, roads, and calendarization of their names. This comparative analysis is notable more for the information it disregards than the data emphasized.

As ever, Jesse

[OneFollowingHim]

Greetings, OFH,

The website owner deliberately misrepresented the information already misrepresented in his chart. To describe his information as "accurate" is to impugn your own reputation as well. Given evidence of contradiction, it is entirely appropriate to make a wider check to see if the source of these contradictions is more generally impeachable. The table in question is not sourced, forcing examination of the website author himself. Describing this as an ad hominem attack while disregarding the ad argumentum comments is dishonest.

Authenticity of the gospels is not much of an issue though there are notable variances within the texts, for example, the final passage in Mark. The actual authorship of many epistles is unknown, most notably Hebrews, but also the pastorals.

But the accuracy of the representation of many events is highly suspect. There are no witnesses to the temptation of Jesus following his baptism by John. The gospel accounts contradict themselves at this point, with one detailing an ambiguous "40 days" — generally read as a long period of time — spent in the desert where another has him gathering apostles the very next day.

To say that no serious scholar doubts the authenticity of these events may play well with the choir, but it only emphasizes the link between faith and a need to deny reality that serves to drive thinking people out of your churches. It is the same "praise the lord and blast the evolution" disconnect from scholarship responsible for the dreadful skew toward poor educational attainment prevalent in the more fundamentalist brands of christianity.

If we cannot trust you to speak reliably about things we can examine directly, we cannot trust you to speak reliably about the theology underlying your faith.

As ever, Jesse

You say "many events" and "highly suspect". Are you unbiased?

If I was a New Testament writer and was writing something I knew to be not truly representative of the things the way they really happened, I'd leave it out. The example you give about Jesus' temptation in the desert not being witnessed by any eyewitnesses doesn't really call into question the reliability of the rest of the record. If Jesus has credibility and he tells me a story about an experience He's had, I'm gonna believe Him to tell me the way it really happened. Does Jesus have credibility? I would think so.

When you consider the amount of unquestionable New Testament writings, you must consider where the question/doubt really exists with regards to the questionable ones. If I had a list of 2,000 facts where I knew they were likely to be correct and I had doubt about 2 or 3 of them, I'd wonder if I was seeing the full picture of the few I doubted.

It's not so much the fact there are things we have some doubts as it is with the claims made in the New Testament where little doubt exists.

That website author definitely misrepresented the facts, but that does not undermine the reality of the number and consistency of the manuscripts. Embellishment is not falsification. But I suspect you know this already.

[OneFollowingHim]

Another very important point about the New Testament church...


It can be argued that people will gladly die for a cause so long as they believe it is right even if, in fact, it is wrong. But they will never die for a cause they know is false. It is ludicrous to believe that the apostles willingly forfeited the comforts of life, their jobs and family, and their financial security and instead accepted ridicule, persecution, imprisonment, torture, and in many cases horrible deaths all the while knowing Jesus’ resurrection was a fabrication. No. They knew He was alive, risen from the dead, and it was that knowledge that propelled them to live for Him at all costs.[/url]

[url="http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1731516#_ftnref1"] (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1731516#_ftn1)Story, Dan: Defending Your Faith. Grand Rapids, MI : Kregel Publications, 1997, S. 92

It is also important to note that not only did the disciples believe the resurrection happened, most of them were anticipating it from what was taught them in the Old Testament scriptures. To go from believing Jesus is the Messiah (all the while before His crucifixion) to believing the whole thing was not true (when He was crucified) to then getting undeniable proof that he was alive (after His resurrection) made all the difference. The disciples risked and gave everything to tell others.

[s1mpleton]

Thank you, s1mpleton,

Retracting errors is as highly laudable as attempts to deny them are worthy of anathema. It remains to either withdraw the reference entirely or to provide a more reliable link.

Still, I do not see any probitive value in the number of extant copies of mss. More, this comparison of historicity with Caesar is biased by looking only at mss. evidence. For the Caesars we have independent evidence in the coinage and monuments that date to their reigns, along with the cities, roads, and calendarization of their names. This comparative analysis is notable more for the information it disregards than the data emphasized.
This link may provide a less fanatical approach to the chart in question:

http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/... (http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/xian/bible2.html#1)

I rather view this chart as a supplement to other evidences. In addition and like Ceasar, we have independent evidence in secular writings and what-not as to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

I'm not sure I would dismiss OFH's points and thought processes completely. Neither do I lightly dismiss yours :smile:

[shunyadragon]

But then the New Testament has better support for authenticity than every other work from antiquity. I suspect most would object to the claims given there.

I disagree. There were other writers recording events and commentary about the times Jesus lived in the first century. Historians do not give any more credibility to the Bible than the other writers at the time. The second to the fourth century gives better documentation, but not alwayas completely reliable as with Josephus, of the Christianity anad its early history. The rise of skeptics of Christianity and their claims is directly proportional to the rise of Christianity in sources and litereature. When Christian and Biblical literature appears so do the skeptics.

[OneFollowingHim]

I disagree. There were other writers recording events and commentary about the times Jesus lived in the first century. Historians do not give any more credibility to the Bible than the other writers at the time. The second to the fourth century gives better documentation, but not alwayas completely reliable as with Josephus, of the Christianity anad its early history. The rise of skeptics of Christianity and their claims is directly proportional to the rise of Christianity in sources and litereature. When Christian and Biblical literature appears so do the skeptics.

You're right about my overstating the claim about the New Testament having better support than any other historical documents. I will only say that it has as much support as any other historical documents.

As far as the skeptics go, it seems to me that Christianity took off very quickly. And that soon after Jesus' resurrection. There were 3,000 souls save in one day.


So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand 1asouls.


1 I.e. persons

a Acts 3:23; 7:14; 27:37; Rom 13:1; 1 Pet 3:20; Rev 16:3

New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Ac 2:41




This event took place after Pentecost which was only days after Jesus' ascension. Three thousand that day. then...

And the Lord bwas adding 1to their number day by day cthose who were being saved.


b Acts 2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7; 9:31, 35, 42; 11:21, 24; 14:1, 21; 16:5; 17:12

1 Lit together

c 1 Cor 1:18

New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Ac 2:47

I don't know about the population at the time, but the 3,000 people in one day plus numbers being added day by day seems to indicate a significantly high proportion in the growth of Christianity, even for larger populations. Couple that with the fact that there was concern over people converting to Christianity...




Therefore athe chief priests and the Pharisees bconvened a ccouncil, and were saying, “What are we doing? For this man is performing many 1dsigns. “If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our aplace and our nation.”



a John 7:32, 45; 11:57

b Matt 26:3

c Matt 5:22

1 Or attesting miracles

d John 2:11

a Matt 24:15


New American Standard Bible : 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA : The Lockman Foundation, 1995, S. Jn 11:47

What we read in Acts is a result of the concern we see right here in John. If there was a NEED for the skeptc to respond it would have been when the numbers were increasing "day by day".