The purpose of this page is twofold: first, to provide links to my recorded debates with apologists and, second, to provide links to criticisms made against this blog by external websites, along with my responses.
Historicity of the Bible Panel Debate: In a panel debate between believers and non-believers, we discuss the historical reliability of the Bible. On the believers side, Dr. Howard Killian (Ph.D. in History, Duke University) and Joseph Barrera (graduate, Calvary Chapel Bible College West Covina) defend the historical reliability of the Bible. On the non-believers side, Valentin Velazco (Riverside Atheists and Free Thinkers) and I offer criticism of the Bible’s reliability.
Debate with Evangelical Scholar Craig Evans: Dr. Craig Evans (John Bisagno Distinguished Professor of Christian Origins, Houston Baptist University) and I debate the dates when the canonical Gospels were written, and how the issue of dating affects the historical reliability of the Gospels.
Resurrection Debate with Nick Peters: Nick Peters (graduate, Johnson Bible College) and I debate the resurrection of Jesus. I argue that historical skepticism towards the resurrection is more reasonable than historical credence based on the evidence available.
Worldview Debate with Don Johnson: Don Johnson (M.A. in Christian Apologetics, Biola University; M.A. in Theology, Franciscan University of Steubenville) and I debate metaphysical naturalism vs. Christian theism as competing worldviews.
Responses to Critics:
Response to Peters: Nick Peters critiques my essay “Knocking Out the Pillars of the Minimal Facts Apologetic” from a Christian perspective. His first post can be found here, and here is my response. Peters followed up with a second critical response here, and here is my second reply.
Response to Marshall: Christian apologist David Marshall writes a highly polemical critique of my article “Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament.” Marshall’s critique can be found here, and here is my response, in which I not only refute Marshall’s arguments, but also expose his polemical and dishonest tactics.