Here's Me Using the Bible to Prove the Bible

The one invalid way to use the Bible to prove itself is simple circularity: 'The Bible says it's God's Word, therefore it is.' This same logic could be applied to the Book of Mormon or the Quran, and Winger agrees with skeptics that this form of reasoning is illegitimate.

Winger cites Book of Moses 1:40-41 as an example of a text prophesying about itself (claiming Joseph Smith would restore corrupted scripture) when in fact Joseph Smith wrote that very text himself — making it a case of backdated, self-fulfilling prophecy rather than genuine authentication.

Surah 61:6 has Muhammad claim that Jesus predicted a messenger named 'Ahmad' (part of Muhammad's own name, which was not his birth name), placing a self-serving prophecy on Jesus' lips with no ancient corroboration. Winger presents this as an example of fabricated validation.

Claims from the biblical text can be tested against external archaeological evidence. Confirming one claim does not prove everything, but verification increases the text's historical credibility. When archaeology confirms a claim, it lends 'historicity' to the surrounding narrative.

Skeptical German scholarship (1700s) argued King David was a Jewish invention. The 1993-95 Tel Dan excavations uncovered a stele written by an Aramean king (~841 BC) referencing 'the house of David,' providing non-Jewish confirmation that the Davidic dynasty was real, refuting the invention hypothesis.

Some skeptics claimed Pontius Pilate was a Gospel fiction. The Pilate Stone (discovered 1961, dated AD 26-36) is a 2x3 foot inscription naming 'Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea,' providing secular confirmation of a key Gospel figure during the exact period of Jesus' ministry and crucifixion.

Beyond David and Pilate, archaeological and historical sources have confirmed the existence of Gallio, Erastus, Caiaphas, Annas, James the brother of Jesus, Peter, and Jesus himself — showing the NT was not fabricating characters wholesale.

Winger notes that skeptical scholars frequently assume biblical characters or events are fabricated while treating other ancient sources as valid by default. He characterizes this as an unjustified bias rather than sound historical methodology.

Textual criticism — comparing thousands of manuscript copies, locating them geographically, and dating them — has demonstrated that every New Testament book was written within the first century, much earlier than 19th-century skeptics claimed (~200s AD). It also shows the biblical text has been transmitted with remarkable fidelity.

The Bible is supported by thousands of manuscripts. Comparing them reveals only minor variations — spelling differences, word order — not substantive theological changes. A reader can trust modern John 1 reflects what was originally written.

Winger argues Ehrman's book creates a false impression of radical biblical change by using technically true statements in a misleading way. When pressed in an interview, Ehrman himself admitted the Gospels 'pretty much say exactly what they say in your Bible now,' undermining the impression his book creates.

Winger's favorite counter to 'the Bible has been changed' claims: ask the person what specific doctrine or belief should be different based on their view of how the text has been altered. He says no one ever answers because the manuscript tradition is so stable that no theology would change.

Around 650 AD, Caliph Uthman collected competing Quran versions, created a single authorized text, and destroyed all variant manuscripts. This means the Quran — a later document than the Bible — has a worse manuscript tradition because independent confirmation of the original text was deliberately eliminated.

The Bible is 66 books by 40+ authors spanning over 1,500 years in multiple languages. This provides the kind of multiple independent attestation historians look for when establishing historical reliability. Historians prize multiple witnesses close in time to events — criteria the New Testament's 27 first-century documents meet.

Earlier 20th-century scholarship (especially the Jesus Seminar) treated the Gospels as myths, but current scholarly consensus has shifted. Graham Stanton (King's College London) and David Aune (Notre Dame) both argue the Gospels fit the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios), which aimed to faithfully record historical fact even with theological purpose.

Aune's quote is cited to make the point that ancient biographers had obvious biases (encomium) yet were still 'firmly rooted in historical fact rather than literary fiction.' The Gospel writers' theological agenda does not disqualify them as historical sources; their choice of biographical conventions shows concern for what actually happened.

Treating the Gospels as ordinary historical documents and applying standard historical methodology, scholars (even skeptical ones) reach broad consensus on a set of historical facts about Jesus. These facts, assembled together, constitute a powerful cumulative case for the Gospel narrative.

The vast majority of historians — including skeptics — affirm Jesus' historical existence. Only a tiny handful of scholars (Price, Carrier) deny it, and Winger notes they represent a fringe position.

Historians accept that Jesus was baptized by John as historically reliable, partly due to the criterion of embarrassment — early Christians would have had reason to explain away or omit a detail where Jesus submits to a baptism of repentance, suggesting it is not invented.

Scholars broadly agree that during his ministry, people viewed Jesus as a miracle worker and exorcist. Even without affirming the miracles themselves occurred, historians confirm this was the contemporary popular perception.

Historians broadly agree that Jesus himself understood his mission in eschatological terms — that he was bringing in the kingdom of God. This is Jesus's own self-understanding as reconstructed by historical methodology.

There is near-universal scholarly consensus that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. This is treated as one of the most firmly established facts of ancient history.

Historians broadly agree the disciples sincerely claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death and genuinely believed this. The question of what explains those claims is debated, but the existence of the belief itself is accepted as historical.

Historians broadly agree that Paul genuinely converted as a result of what he at least believed was an appearance of the risen Christ, representing a dramatic reversal from his role as a persecutor of Christians.

A majority (though not full consensus) of scholars accept that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea and that the tomb was subsequently found empty. Winger treats this majority position as significant in building the resurrection case.

Even Bart Ehrman — one of the most prominent critical scholars — acknowledges that the New Testament documents are the earliest and best sources for historical knowledge about Jesus, undercutting the dismissal of the Gospels as unreliable.

Genuine predictive prophecy — written and datable before events — is a test that secular authors cannot pass. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 52-53 describe crucifixion details before the method was invented; Ezekiel 26 predicts the destruction of Tyre. Combined with historical confirmation that the events occurred, fulfilled prophecy supports divine inspiration.

Valid prophecy requires dateable pre-event writing. Manuscript evidence (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls) places Isaiah and the Psalms before Jesus, making their messianic content genuine prediction rather than post-hoc composition. This distinguishes biblical prophecy from the Book of Mormon or Quran examples.

Despite being written by 40+ authors across 1,500+ years in multiple languages, the Bible displays cohesive internal unity — including undesigned coincidences and a sweeping meta-narrative centered on Christ. This coherence is evidence of a single divine author superintending the whole.

Undesigned coincidences are places where one biblical document unexpectedly explains or fills in a detail from another without any apparent coordination between authors. The example given: Mark 14 records that witnesses at Jesus' trial quoted a saying about 'destroying this temple' but their testimonies disagreed — without explaining why. John 2 supplies the original context (Jesus meant his body), even though John doesn't include the trial scene. This kind of interlocking detail is characteristic of authentic historical accounts, not coordinated invention.

The Old Testament was already understood by Jews — not just Christians — as pointing to a coming Messiah. The breadth and robustness of typological and prophetic connections to Jesus across the OT (seed of the woman, angel of the Lord, Melchizedek, prophet like Moses, bronze serpent, Joseph, High Priest, kinsman redeemer, Davidic King, last Adam) constitutes a meta-narrative that could only exist by design.

In contrast to the Bible's meta-narrative, Star Wars' first film (Episode 4) did not present Darth Vader as Anakin Skywalker — that identity was added later, showing retroactive plot construction. The Bible's Christ-centered meta-narrative runs consistently from beginning to end, unlike narratives that bolt on significance after the fact.

The Bible is not merely informational — it calls people to live a certain way, and doing so demonstrates its truth experientially. Winger cites his marriage as an example: following biblical principles in a family culture with ~95% divorce rates resulted in a thriving ten-year marriage. The Bible's insights into human nature, psychology, and practical wisdom prove accurate when lived out.

Winger's approach to skeptical worldviews: challenge the person to live consistently with their beliefs. He recounts a conversation with a man who believed reality was an illusion and 'all is one' — but who refused to give away his possessions, proving he didn't actually believe what he claimed. Atheism similarly cannot be lived consistently (e.g., pretending moral values exist).

An eighth, somewhat informal way to use the Bible to prove itself: simply look at Jesus as a person — his words, his historical reality, his life. Engaging seriously with who Jesus is, what he claimed, and what he did produces its own evidential force, especially when combined with the historical bedrock facts scholars agree on.

Winger explicitly frames his approach as a cumulative case: archaeology, textual criticism, multiple attestation, historical reconstruction, prophecy, unity/meta-narrative, and experiential evidence are each like different tests on a $100 bill — no single test is definitive, but together they build a compelling case for the Bible's authenticity and divine inspiration.

In a Q&A exchange, Winger clarifies that verifying one claim in a text archaeologically does not automatically validate all other claims. Historical credibility is built incrementally, not wholesale. This is a guard against both over-claiming and the skeptical misuse of the argument.

Whether it is 'reasonable' to think some biblical claims are false depends entirely on one's prior conclusion about inspiration. If the Bible is demonstrated to be inspired by God, then assuming it contains errors becomes unreasonable, because God is reliable and dependable by nature.

Winger warns against approaching Scripture selectively — taking what fits existing preferences and discarding the rest. Authentic Christian discipleship requires approaching the Bible as authoritative, remaining willing to change beliefs and behavior when the text challenges them, rather than making oneself the final arbiter.

Winger briefly affirms his critical view of the Passion Translation, calling it 'obviously a distortion' of God's Word, and notes that Bethel Church's promotion of it has increased rather than allayed his concerns about that movement over time.

Winger affirms that the red-letter convention in printed Bibles is an English editorial addition, not a mark of verbatim quotation. Greek manuscripts have no quotation marks. The Gospel writers sometimes paraphrase Jesus, not always quote him directly — but the text faithfully records what Jesus said and intended. The ambiguous boundary between Jesus's words and John's commentary (e.g., John 3) is offered as an example.

Winger addresses the claim that Paul's 'not with words of eloquent wisdom' (1 Cor 1:17) condemns the use of apologetics. He argues this is a misreading: Paul is saying his persuasion was not merely rhetorical — the gospel itself had power in Corinth. Acts shows Paul regularly reasoning and persuading. Apologetics serves as a 'crowbar' to open doors, but the gospel message itself is what saves.

Winger's illustration: apologetics is like the jaws of life — it opens the door for someone to receive help, but it is not the thing that actually saves. Salvation comes through the gospel (Christ crucified, sin resolved through Christ). This keeps apologetics in its proper place without dismissing it.

In response to a Q&A question about calling to ministry, Winger teaches that a sense of unworthiness is right and proper — waiting for perfection would be an excuse never to serve. What matters is faithfulness and heart orientation. He cites 1 Timothy 3 on the qualifications for eldership as a practical starting point.

Winger recommends Mike Licona's 'The Resurrection of Jesus: A Historiographical Approach' as a scholarly source for the consensus historical facts about Jesus. He directs readers specifically to the 'historical bedrock' chapters for the data on scholarly agreements about the baptism, crucifixion, post-resurrection appearances, and related facts.

Winger declines to condemn parents who choose public school but insists they must actively address secular content at home — particularly in California. Opting for public school without engaging the ideas children are taught is 'dropping the ball' as a Christian parent.