Ojuice5001

I've noticed a flaw that exists in most Christian apologetics. They seem to think that you can study the Bible, Jesus's life, the history of the ancient Middle East, etc., and then conclude that Christianity is true. But this has to be a mistake. Christianity involves statements about all the things in the universe, like Supreme Being, other supernatural phenomena, human nature, the history of the human and nonhuman world, ethics, and so on. In view of that, it seems nonsensical to let these views be dictated by what seems to be the best explanation of one small phenomenon.

Let's say that the Trilemma, for example, is as good an arugument as its strongest advocates claim. But suppose there are equally good arguments, based on much wider aspects of human knowledge, that suggest that naturalistic atheism, or Hinduism, or some other worldview is true. Which should we believe? I say it's no contest. The competitor of Christianity should be believed. It is necessarily better to rewrite our knowledge of one man in the first century than to rewrite large bodies of knowledge.

So Christian apologists need to realize, as many don't, that you can't rely heavily on historical evidence. You have to work with large bodies of knowledge to show that they support Christianity, and then you can trot out your claims of fulfilled prophecy or evidence for the Resurrection. If you don't do this, anyone with a well-supported philosophy is justified in saying that your historical evidence can better be explained by saying something that, in itself, is unlikely.