In the last episode, we started to unpack how to view Jesus and the claims of Christianity, and we started with verifying the accuracy of the Gospel accounts.
It led us to two conclusions:
In order to accept the Gospels, one must accept the plausibility of miracles in our worldview.
We must address who Jesus really was, based on what He said and did.
As we go along, I want to give a hat tip to Mike Winger who had an amazing YouTube interview that helped me summarize this argument.
What are miracles anyway?
Miracles are events that occur outside of the laws of nature that govern this Earth.
David Hume is the one credited with the classic “Hume’s Objection” and is the most common argument against miracles.
“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; since the laws of nature are established by uniform experience, no testimony can ever be sufficient to prove a miracle.”
The basis of this argument is that because miracles are least likely explanation for anything, any other natural explanation, even a far-fetched one, must always be more probable.
The category error made in this argument is as follows:
Treating the laws of nature as if they describe everything that can ever happen, when in reality, they describe what happens when nature is left to itself.
A miracle doesn’t violate natural law. It’s an intervention by a supernatural cause.
In fact, the laws of nature are a necessary precondition for recognizing miracles!
You must know what normally happens (the regularity of nature) in order to recognize when something extraordinary has occurred.
So natural law doesn’t make miracles impossible — it makes them detectable.
Miracles are rare by design. In the Gospels, Jesus regularly points to His signs as evidence that He is divine.
If miracles were common, the signs Jesus did wouldn’t point to anything extraordinary at all!
The rarity of miracles doesn’t make them less believable in principle; it’s predicted by the hypothesis that God occasionally acts for revelatory purposes (to validate a divine messenger or message).
If you believe in God, you naturally will believe in miracles. For He created the laws of nature themselves, which means He’s able to intervene when He chooses.
There are a few other counter arguments to Hume’s objection (which admittedly get a little philosophical), but you can see how if someone believes in God but then chooses not to believe the miracles in the Gospels, they are doing some illogical mental gymnastics.
“But how can I be 100% certain that this happened?”
Even if we establish the credibility of the Gospel manuscripts, as well as the possibility of a worldview in which miracles are possible, the desire for 100% certainty usually pops up next.
This is a psychological trap.
The truth is, we never operate on 100% certainty.
In the video with Mike Winger and Johnathan McLatchie, he explains some everyday examples of this.
Every time you eat at a restaurant, you’re not certain the waiter didn’t poison the food.
Every time you cross the street, you’re not certain the car will stop at the red light.
Every time you board a plane, you’re not certain it won’t crash.
We still act, because our confidence is rationally justified by probability and evidence, not by absolute proof.
Christianity invites rational confidence not irrational certainty.
Jesus as presented in the Gospels is so well evidenced that doubt would be considered unreasonable.
Now we move onto the most popular take on Jesus.
“I believe He was a good teacher and did miracles.”
People who say this believe the Gospel accounts are valid, believe miracles are possible, don’t need 100% irrational certainty, and yet they still stop at the “he was a good teacher” cliche.
C.S. Lewis once famously said that Jesus can only be Lord, Lunatic, or Liar.
You must choose one of the three.
As we discussed in the last episode, Orthodox Jews put Jesus in the camp of Liar and/or Lunatic.
Christians call Him Lord.
Everyone else (Islam, Buddhism, New Age, etc.) all try to make a fourth option: Good teacher (or sometimes prophet).
The idea of Lord, Lunatic, or Liar is not just a fancy argument. If we are going to believe the Gospel accounts and take Jesus at His word, good teacher does not fit in the options.
Jesus claimed divine authority to forgive sins
Jesus claimed to be one with God the father
Jesus claimed to pre-exist Abraham
Jesus claimed to be returning to judge the nations
Jesus claimed that man’s eternal status depended on them believing in Him
His words are either true or false.
If his words are true, He is God, and also a great teacher.
If they are false, Jesus was in a grand delusion or He was a master manipulator. There’s no room to be a “good moral teacher” here.
Do we see any evidence of either of those types of behaviors - manipulation or delusion?
I asked ChatGPT to round up some qualities of Jesus as seen in the Gospels.
Consistent Emotional Stability
Calm under extreme pressure (before Pilate, during betrayal, even on the cross).
Never shows paranoia, manic highs/lows, or loss of contact with reality.
Profound Empathy
Weeps over Jerusalem and Lazarus.
Shows compassion for the sick, poor, outcasts, and children.
Prioritizes others’ welfare above His own comfort.
Absence of Self-Aggrandizement
Rejects fame after miracles; often tells healed people to “say nothing.”
Withdraws from crowds when they try to make Him king.
Lives with no wealth, privilege, or political status.
Humility in Action
Washes His disciples’ feet — a servant’s job.
Teaches “the greatest among you will be your servant.”
Associates with the lowly, not elites or flattery-seekers.
Intellectual and Moral Coherence
Engages opponents logically and graciously, not defensively.
His teachings are balanced — neither erratic nor self-contradictory.
His ethical insights (Sermon on the Mount) remain unsurpassed in clarity and universality.
No Signs of Grandiose Fantasy
Never builds cultic hierarchy or demands luxury, sex, or blind obedience.
His “claims of divinity” are always tied to moral teaching and service, not domination.
Self-Sacrifice Over Self-Preservation
Freely walks toward crucifixion, knowing it means suffering and rejection.
Prays for His executioners: “Father, forgive them.”
This behavior is incompatible with self-centered delusion.
Relational Realism
Forms deep, mutual friendships (Peter, John, Mary, Martha).
Allows others to question Him without rage or punishment.
Exhibits healthy detachment — loves fully but not possessively.
Moral Genius, Not Mania
His parables, aphorisms, and dialogues reveal composure, not obsession.
His ethical framework is internally consistent and psychologically sound.
The idea that He was a lunatic or a liar is not reasonable. The idea that He was a “moral good teacher” without taking into account His claims, also logically falls apart.
Next we’re going to look more closely at the biggest miracle of all, the resurrection.
If you’re following along on this series, it’s clear that once you address the veracity of the Gospels, the probability of miracles, and the claims of Jesus, there’s really only one possibility coming into view…
That He was (and is) the Messiah.
