Q&A — Luke 23:43 and John 20:17: Jesus eating post-resurrection and 'do not cling to me'

Viewer asks about the relationship between two post-resurrection passages

Thomas touching Jesus in Luke — touching is fine, clinging is what was forbidden in John 20:17

Clarifying John 20:17 by comparison to the Thomas passage

Barker's legendary growth argument cherry-picks data — each Gospel sometimes has more miraculous content, sometimes less

Mike's critique of Barker's fourth objection

Q&A: Matthew 26:23 vs. John 13:26 — apparent contradiction at the Last Supper

Viewer question about differences between Matthew 26:23 and John 13:26 in identifying the betrayer

Q&A: The pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11, woman caught in adultery) was likely not in the original Gospel of John

Viewer asks about the scholarly conclusion that the 'cast the first stone' story is a later addition.

Partial and total fulfillment: Mike's interpretive framework for prophecy

Mike presents the first of two key background concepts before diving into Mark 13.

The simplest test for distinguishing true from false teachers is the identity of Jesus (who is he?) and the means of salvation (how am I saved?) — 1 John and Ephesians 2:8-9

Q&A: question from Zipa Duck about how new Christians can identify false vs. true teachers.

Matthew 16 / Mark 9 / Luke 9 — 'Some standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom' refers to the Transfiguration, not the Second Coming.

Ra claims Jesus predicted his imminent return and was proven a false prophet because all disciples are now dead.

John 5: Jesus gives three evidences for his identity — John the Baptist, his miracles, and OT prophecy; Winger cites this as Jesus using evidential method

Winger's argument from John 5

Book recommendations for comparing apologetic methodologies; Sye recommends Bahnson's 'Always Ready' and 'Presuppositional Apologetics Stated and Defended'; Jason Lisle's 'The Ultimate Proof of Creation'

Audience book recommendation question

Sye's ultimate evidential claim: everything proves God's existence because you cannot make sense of evidence itself without God — he is 'the ultimate evidentialist'

Sye's reframing of himself as a supreme evidentialist

John 19:11 — Jesus tells Pilate that the one who handed him over 'has the greater sin,' demonstrating a qualitative comparison of two specific sins.

Mike examines the conversation between Jesus and Pilate during the Passion narrative as a direct statement by Jesus about comparative sin.

Calling Apollonius a 'son of God' in a pagan Greco-Roman sense (some divine energy or lower-case god quality) is fundamentally different from Jesus being declared Son of God in the Jewish context, where it meant equality with God (John 5). The New Testament is a Jewish document, not a pagan one, and conflating Jewish and pagan divine-sonship language muddies the comparison.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Q&A: 2 John 1:9-11 — disconnect from the false teacher's church and teaching, but distinguish that from family relationship; the two separations are not identical.

Final Q&A on whether to disconnect from a family member teaching false doctrine.

Jim's claim about Gospel dating: Mark was written 40 years after Jesus at the earliest, and John was written 100+ years after Mark — implying John is 170 AD or later

First specific claim Mike refutes

Refutation of Jim's Gospel dating: scholars date Mark to the 50s–70s AD, and John to the 60s or 90s AD — not 170 AD; P52 papyrus (100–150 AD) proves John predates Jim's claim by decades

Mike systematically dismantles the 170 AD date for John

Even Bart Ehrman — a non-Christian scholar whose goal is to undermine Christianity — dates John to 90–95 AD, not 170 AD

Mike offers a source skeptics can't dismiss as biased

Zahnd's three-step method for dismantling orthodox Christianity and replacing it with his own version

Winger maps out the structural argument Zahnd uses in his book 'Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God.'

Zahnd's idol: a universalist Jesus who saves devout Muslims regardless of belief, contradicting Christ's own words

Winger reads Zahnd's 'Becky and Belkis' thought experiment from page 142 of the book, in which a devout Muslim woman is contrasted with a mean American Christian woman.

Hebrews 10 and Mark 1:44 show that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system rather than rejecting or editing it

Winger addresses Zahnd's claim that Jesus 'picked a side' against sacrifice and against the Torah.

Zahnd's claim that 'Jesus is the only perfect theology' and 'the Bible is not the perfect revelation of God' mirrors Bill Johnson's framework

Winger reads Zahnd's explicit statements from pages 14 and 30 of the book about the relationship between Jesus and Scripture.

Craig Blomberg cited: Epistles of John contain no quotations of Jesus despite being written after the Gospel of John

Mike uses this scholarly observation as evidence that the absence of Jesus-quotations in epistles is normal and expected, not a red flag.

Mike's disagreement with Vatican II's claim that Muslims worship the one true God

Responding to Lumen Gentium's statement about Muslims

John 3:1-3 — Jesus tells Nicodemus (a devout Pharisee) he must be 'born again'

Mike turns to Jesus's own words to a religious Jew as the direct scriptural answer

John 3:6 — born of flesh vs. born of Spirit: the new birth is spiritual, not physical

Jesus explains what 'born again' means to Nicodemus

John 5:45-47 — if you believed Moses you would believe me: encountering Jesus reveals whether one truly believed Moses

Mike addresses the logical question: what about Ben, who has heard of Jesus but rejected him?

John 5:31-38 — Jesus presents three specific evidences for his identity: John the Baptist, miracles, and Scripture

Mike analyzes Jesus's own self-defense in John 5 as a model of evidence-based persuasion.

John 5:39 — the Old Testament scriptures testify of Jesus as a third category of evidence

Continuation of the John 5 analysis; the Father's testimony through Scripture.

Pivot to objections: addressing 'but what about?' passages that skeptics use to support the faith-without-evidence definition

Mike transitions from positive case to handling counter-passages.

John 20:24-29 — Thomas passage: 'not seen' does not mean 'without evidence'

Mike addresses the Thomas story as the third counter-passage.

Thomas's demand to see the nail marks refutes Jehovah's Witness teaching that Jesus rose in a different body

Side point made while explaining the Thomas narrative.

Jesus gives Thomas evidence first, then commands belief — a model of evidence-based faith

The climax of Mike's Thomas analysis.

Thomas's rebuke was for ignoring available evidence, not for demanding evidence — modern believers have the same pre-appearance evidence

Mike draws the application of the Thomas story to contemporary Christian faith.

Q&A: Can Satan, as a non-omnipotent being, put thoughts into people's minds?

Viewer question from Joy Chintons.

Q&A: Connection between belief and obedience in John 3:36 — belief leads to obedience; lack of obedience implies lack of faith

Viewer question from Jacob Englet about John 3:36 and James 2:14-26.

Brief digression — 'the sin that leads to death' in 1 John and Leviticus typology are likely unrelated

Q&A — off-topic question about 1 John's 'sin that leads to death' and Leviticus typology

119 Ministries' core philosophical claim: Jesus is the Word, therefore Jesus is the Bible, therefore obeying Jesus means obeying OT law — Mike calls this irrational

Mike introduces the central pre-Pauline argument of 119 Ministries: equating Jesus (the Logos) with the written Bible.

Mike gives five arguments for why Jesus is not the Bible

Systematic refutation of the 119 Ministries claim that Jesus = the written Word.

1 John 3:4 — "sin is lawlessness" — Hebrew Roots argument: lawlessness = breaking Torah, therefore sin = breaking Torah, therefore obeying Torah is mandatory

Mike walks through the Hebrew Roots syllogism built on 1 John 3:4 in step-by-step form.

Greek term anomia (lawlessness) does not exclusively mean violation of the Mosaic law — it has diverse NT usage

Mike makes a focused philological argument about the Greek word anomia.

Reading 1 John in context: the commandment John has in view is love and faith in Jesus Christ, not the Mosaic law

Mike does a sustained contextual reading of 1 John 2 and 3 to determine what John meant by "commandments."

Walking as Jesus walked does not mean obeying the OT law — it could equally mean itinerant preaching only to Jews, or staying in Israel, which no one applies literally

Mike challenges the 119 Ministries use of 1 John 2:6 ("walk as he walked") by following the logic consistently.

John 15: the commandment of Jesus is to love one another as he loved us — Mike applies this to the "walk as he walked" question

Mike reads John 15:12 as further confirmation that the commandment Jesus gives is love, not Torah-keeping.

119 Ministries contradicts itself: early they say Torah-keeping is not required for salvation; later they imply it is, calling non-observance "denying the faith"

Mike plays two clips from 119 Ministries showing an internal contradiction between their opening disclaimer and their later conclusion.

Galatians 6:2 — "the law of Christ" means bearing one another's burdens, which Mike identifies with love

Q&A: questioner asks about "the law of Christ" in Galatians 6:2.