Scientific Advancement

Authority Replacement

Judgment

The abomination of desolation is one of the hardest passages in the entire gospel of Mark, touching on eschatology, Daniel's prophecy, and whether its fulfillment is past (70 AD) or future. Winger introduces a futurist position while acknowledging in-house Christian disagreement.

Intro to Mark 13:14-23 study; sets up the interpretive stakes

Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BC is the only historical event outside the Bible that uses the exact phrase "abomination of desolation" (1 Maccabees 1:54). He banned Jewish worship, erected an altar to Zeus in the temple, and sacrificed a pig on it — giving Jesus's audience a concrete reference point while Jesus still pointed to a future fulfillment.

Historical background: Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean revolt

2 Thessalonians 2 describes the same figure Jesus warned about: a "man of lawlessness" who sits in the temple declaring himself God, whose coming is connected to satanic signs, and who will be slain at Christ's return. This harmonizes with Daniel and Mark, and the self-worship element connects to Revelation's description of the Beast demanding worship.

Paul's teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2 as parallel to the abomination of desolation

Some skeptics argue that the gospel of Mark has a "low Christology" — presenting Jesus as a mere messianic figure without full divine identity. Winger argues Mark's trial narrative (14:53-72) is actually a theological climax demonstrating the opposite: high Christology is central to the earliest gospel.

Framing the apologetic argument against low-Christology claims about Mark

When the high priest asks if Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed," Jesus responds "I am" and quotes two Old Testament passages: Daniel 7:13-14 (the Son of Man receiving all dominion) and Psalm 110:1 (sitting at the right hand of God). Both are deity-laden claims — riding the clouds is a divine prerogative in the OT (Psalm 68:4; Deut. 33:26), and the Son of Man receives eternal worship from all nations.

The high Christology embedded in Jesus's self-disclosure at his trial

The presence of women as the primary witnesses to the empty tomb was an embarrassment to the early church in first-century culture, where women's testimony was widely discredited. What was a liability then is actually strong evidence for historical reliability now — people don't fabricate stories that hurt their own credibility.

The criterion of embarrassment and the women witnesses; Celsius's criticism

Richard Bauckham's thesis in "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" is that names appearing in Mark's gospel identify living witnesses known to the community receiving the text. When Mark names Simon of Cyrene "the father of Alexander and Rufus," and Paul greets a "Rufus" in Rome (Rom. 16:13), this likely connects to the same family — confirming these are not invented characters but real people vouching for the account.

Named eyewitnesses in Mark as evidence of historical reliability; Bauckham's thesis

The three women witnesses (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome) are named only at this point in Mark's narrative, precisely when Peter disappears. Mark systematically uses named witnesses when Peter is absent — suggesting these women functioned as eyewitness guarantors of the crucifixion, burial, and empty tomb accounts.

The women replace Peter as named witnesses at the passion; Mark's literary structure as historical indicator

Salome is present at the death scene and the empty tomb, but absent from the burial scene (only the two Marys watch where Jesus is laid). This inconsistency would have been smoothed over in a fabricated account. The simplest explanation is she wasn't there for the burial — a subtle but significant mark of historicity.

The inconsistency of Salome's appearances as evidence of historical accuracy rather than legend

Mark uses consistent "witnessing verbs" (looking on, saw, looking up, behold the place) as the women observe Jesus die, watch where he is laid, and discover the empty tomb — signaling to the reader that these women are functioning as formal eyewitness testimony in a legally significant sense, not merely as background characters.

The pattern of seeing/witnessing verbs applied to the women in Mark 15-16

The claim that Jesus was never buried in a known tomb (made by scholars like Bart Ehrman) is a minority position that, if true, would undercut the empty tomb argument for the resurrection. Winger's goal is to show the burial is historically well-supported and that Ehrman's case relies on selective use of sources.

Why the burial of Jesus matters for the resurrection argument; Ehrman's challenge introduced

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 required that anyone executed by hanging be buried the same day so as not to defile the land. According to Dr. Craig Evans, the Sanhedrin was specifically tasked with ensuring proper burial of executed persons in Jerusalem to maintain ritual purity — meaning even the enemies of Jesus had religious motivation to bury him promptly.

Jewish law and Sanhedrin practice as evidence for burial; Deut. 21:22-23 and the purity argument

Pilate demonstrably cared about Jewish sensitivities — he removed Roman standards from Jerusalem when Jews protested, and Rome generally allowed subject peoples to maintain their customs (Josephus, Against Apion 2.73). The argument that Pilate would ignore Jewish burial customs for crucified victims contradicts the historical pattern of Roman governance in Judea.

Pilate's demonstrated sensitivity to Jewish customs undermines Ehrman's argument

Philo's "Against Flaccus" (§83) records a Roman governor in Egypt allowing crucified persons to be taken down and given to relatives for burial during a festival — showing there were documented exceptions to any general policy of leaving bodies on crosses, and that burial was sometimes permitted on special occasions across the Roman world.

Philo's "Flaccus" as evidence of Roman burial exceptions for crucified persons

If human value depends on whether a parent wants you and loves you, then all people who are unloved or unwanted by their parents become valueless. Genesis 1:27 and 9:6 establish that human value is innate and image-based — grounded in being made in God's image — not dependent on parental affirmation or social circumstance.

Theological argument: image of God as the basis of innate human value vs. conditional value logic

The pro-choice logic of "this child will suffer, so it's merciful to kill them" parallels suicide logic: if a life is going to be hard, end it early. Applied globally, it would justify aborting virtually all children in sub-Saharan Africa. The Christian answer to suffering is not termination but redemption, care, and help — the "take care of them" solution rather than the "kill them" solution.

The "merciful abortion" argument compared to suicide logic; global poverty counterexample

JW salvation requires four things: (1) taking in the "knowledge" of God and Jesus as defined by the organization, (2) obeying God's laws (works-based), (3) belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, and (4) demonstrating loyalty through door-to-door witnessing. Their own source says "the ransom given by Jesus does not give or guarantee everlasting life" — grace through Christ alone is explicitly denied.

JW soteriology: four requirements for salvation; works-based, organization-dependent

The real authority in JW life is not the Bible but the governing body — eight men in New York City who "formulate doctrine" and whose instructions, according to Watchtower, determine your "spiritual health and relationship with God." The NWT Bible is a doctrinally distorted translation that changes key texts about Christ's deity, and members are discouraged from researching outside Watchtower sources.

JW authority structure: governing body over Scripture; the NWT as a distorted translation

Michael W. Smith removed his endorsement of the Passion Translation after Winger and others highlighted scholarly consensus that it is an unreliable translation. Bible Gateway also removed the TPT from their platform. Winger sees this as a positive cultural shift: mainstream evangelicalism is becoming aware that the Passion Translation is a sectarian, doctrinally distorted product rather than a legitimate Bible translation.

The Passion Translation: Michael W. Smith removes endorsement; Bible Gateway drops TPT

Brian Simmons, translator of the Passion Translation, has made contradictory claims: calling his translation "God-breathed" in charismatic settings while denying it is inspired in the same way as the apostolic writings. His study notes contain claims like "the Temple took 46 years to build and humans have 46 chromosomes, therefore we are the temple God is building" — presented as divine revelation rather than scholarly research.

Brian Simmons's self-contradictory inspiration claims and problematic study note methodology

Winger explains the reason for his extensive long-COVID delay in completing the Women in Ministry series: the number of complex texts and exegetical issues in 1 Timothy 2 is genuinely large, and he refuses to produce a rushed or shallow treatment of a topic that will have real impact on people's lives and churches. This reflects his broader ministry philosophy of thoroughness over speed.

Long-COVID illness and the delay in completing Women in Ministry series; commitment to thoroughness

Hebrews 1:1-2 opens with a declaration of continuity: the same God who spoke through the prophets in many times and ways now speaks through his Son. This compacted theology establishes Jesus as the culmination and continuation of God's revelation — not a replacement or contradiction of it.

Hebrews 1:1-2: the continuity of divine revelation from OT prophets to the Son

The Transfiguration (Matt. 17 / Mark 9 / Luke 9) visually enacts Hebrews 1:1-2: Moses and Elijah appear representing the Law and the Prophets, but God's voice from heaven says "This is my Son — hear him." The old revelation is present and honored, but the new word is through Jesus. This is "Hebrews 1 in living illustration."

The Transfiguration as a visual fulfillment of Hebrews 1:1-2's funnel from prophecy to Son

Andy Stanley's "unhitching from the Old Testament" teaching conflates two different questions: (1) Are Christians under the law of Moses? and (2) Must Christians believe the Old Testament is true? Acts 15 answers question 1 (no, Gentiles need not keep Torah); it says nothing about question 2. Stanley's conflation leads him to suggest that disbelieving the OT is an acceptable option for struggling Christians.

Critiquing Andy Stanley's conflation of applicability of OT law with the truthfulness of the OT

If the Old Testament is not reliably true, then Jesus — who consistently affirmed, quoted, and grounded his teaching in the OT — cannot be trusted either. Hebrews 1 frames the same God speaking through both prophets and Son; you cannot "unhitch" from the OT without also unhitching from the Jesus who is the culmination of it.

Why abandoning OT trustworthiness undermines confidence in Jesus himself

There are two distinct groups who identify Jesus with Michael the Archangel: (1) Jehovah's Witnesses who use it to demote Jesus to a created being (heresy), and (2) orthodox Christians like Spurgeon, Calvin, and Wesley who identify Michael as a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ without denying his deity (an in-house disagreement). These require different responses.

Two types of Jesus-Michael identification; distinguishing heresy from in-house disagreement

The proof texts used to identify Jesus with Michael are weak. 1 Thess. 4:16 says Jesus comes "with the voice of an archangel" — but also "with the sound of a trumpet," which no one takes to mean Jesus is a trumpet. Daniel 10:13 calls Michael "one of the chief princes" — not the unique chief — and inter-testamental literature (1 Enoch, Tobit) uses "archangel" for multiple beings, not one.

Evaluating the key proof texts for Jesus-Michael identification; each is insufficient

The Book of Revelation extensively exalts Jesus as Alpha and Omega, First and Last, worthy of worship — but when Michael appears (Rev. 12:7), he receives no such fanfare. The contrast between how Jesus and Michael are treated in the same book strongly suggests they are distinct beings, with Jesus occupying an utterly different category of glory.

Revelation's contrasting treatment of Jesus and Michael as evidence they are distinct beings

The Charlie Kirk memorial was, in Winger's estimation, probably the largest gospel presentation in human history by audience size — with Frank Turk and others delivering bold, explicit gospel proclamations to a global broadcast audience. Winger calls Kirk a martyr, killed because of his Christian convictions on transgender and sexuality issues, and argues this warrants Christian acknowledgment rather than avoidance due to political discomfort.

The Kirk memorial as historic gospel event; Kirk as a Christian martyr

When solidly biblical Christians disengage from politics out of fear of being seen as partisan, they cede that space to power-hungry leaders who compromise — leaving politicians with access only to figures like Paula White rather than those with genuine theological integrity. There is a real cost to being on the fence: biblical values go unrepresented in policymaking.

The cost of Christian political disengagement; faithful Christians must enter the arena

DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) as typically practiced promotes equal outcomes rather than equal treatment — a distinction Winger argues is biblically significant. The Bible opposes oppression and affirms equal human dignity, but not coerced equal outcomes. Equal outcomes ideology ends up producing new forms of oppression and racism by design.

Biblical critique of DEI: equal treatment vs. equal outcomes; oppression theme in Scripture

Winger describes sitting at the memorial and realizing he had no framework for navigating political engagement alongside people with whom he has serious theological disagreements (Greg Locke, Patricia King, Bishop Robert Barron). He concludes that Christians need to learn to advocate for shared biblical values in political spaces without implying theological unity or compromising doctrinal integrity.

The challenge of political coalition-building across theological divides; navigating partnerships

Apologetics — rigorously engaging the hard questions of the Christian faith — saved Winger's own faith when he was seriously doubting in his 20s. His guest Jonathan Mclatchie makes the case for a "maximal data argument" for the resurrection, as opposed to the more common "minimal facts" approach, arguing it is more compelling because it involves far more lines of evidence.

Introduction: apologetics as faith-saving; maximal vs. minimal facts approach to the resurrection

The maximal data argument for the resurrection has two steps: (1) establish that the gospel and Acts accounts represent genuine eyewitness testimony, then (2) evaluate what best explains the content of those claims. The apostles voluntarily suffered imprisonment, persecution, and death for their testimony — making the conspiracy/lying hypothesis highly implausible (William Paley, 1794).

The maximal data argument: apostolic suffering establishes sincerity; conspiracy hypothesis fails

David Hume's objection — that miracles are by definition the least plausible explanation because they go against uniform experience — is circular: it uses the rarity of miracles to discount all testimony to miracles, then cites the lack of accepted testimony to miracles as proof they don't happen. Paley's response: if God raises Jesus specifically to vindicate his messianic claim, we would not expect that resurrection to be a repeatable event — so non-repetition is not evidence against it.

Hume's objection to miracles and Paley's response; the circularity in Hume's argument

The "undesigned coincidence" between Mark and John on the temple statement: Mark records the false witnesses misquoting Jesus about destroying and rebuilding the temple, but never explains the original statement. John 2:19-21 records the original statement and clarifies it referred to his body. Neither account is copied from the other; they lock together in a way that supports the historicity of both.

Undesigned coincidence: Mark and John on the temple statement lock together to support historicity

When confronted with failed predictions, the rapture-date community's response is to circle the wagons, claim victimhood ("we're being mocked"), and accuse critics of having a "Jezebel spirit." Winger identifies this as classic cult dynamics: insulation from correction, victim mentality, and shielding leaders from accountability through demonization of outsiders.

Cult-like dynamics in the rapture prediction community: victim narratives and Jezebel accusations

Rapture panic will increase as the 2,000-year anniversary of New Testament events approaches — date-setters will find new hooks (Pentecost, transfiguration, crucifixion anniversaries) to set dates. Christians need to learn the pattern now: there is no date-specific revelation in Scripture about Christ's return, and even correct eschatology should not produce specific-date confidence.

Prediction that rapture panic will intensify; the need for Christians to recognize the pattern now

Miller describes what happens to Christian students at secular universities: the combination of social pressure (frat culture, peers) and intellectual indoctrination (Nietzsche, Freud, Darwin) across all departments erodes faith. Real believers don't technically "lose" their faith but are beaten down to the point where their belief has no practical effect — "the heart cannot embrace what the mind cannot believe."

How universities erode Christian faith through combined social and intellectual pressure

The ratio of liberal to conservative professors is 12:1 for those retiring, 23:1 for newly tenured faculty, and 99:1 at Harvard in some departments. 18-24% of social science professors explicitly identify as Marxist, activist, or radical. This is not viewpoint diversity — it is an ideological monoculture, and sending unprepared Christian students into it is, as Miller says, "paying for the apostasy of your own children."

Statistics on liberal-conservative faculty ratio; the ideological monoculture of elite universities