The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Michael Licona (Review)

by Luke Muehlhauser on January 15, 2009 in Historical Jesus,Reviews

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus by Gary Habermas and Mike Licona (whom I interviewed here) teaches Christians how to defend their belief in the Resurrection of Jesus. Here’s my critique.

The role of the Resurrection

Believers and skeptics agree: the Christian faith depends on the Resurrection. Paul wrote that “if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile…” Or as agnostic T.H. Huxley asked, “If it is not historically true that such and such things happened in Palestine [so long ago], what becomes of Christianity?” The Resurrection is the central event of Christianity, on which the whole religion hangs.

But Habermas and Licona want things to work the other way, too. If we have evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, they say, that confirms the truth of Christianity’s claims (p 28). Here begins the apologist’s habit of jumping way beyond what the evidence says. If we have evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, what does that show? That Jesus rose from the dead. And that’s it.

Evidence for the Resurrection would not tell us if Jesus was God or man. It wouldn’t tell us whether he wanted to preach the end of the world or start a non-violent movement or save our souls. Did Jesus offer salvation to Gentiles, or just Jews, or nobody? Was his God the violent Jewish god Yahweh, or another god? Did he consider the Jewish Bible scripture or not? Did he send the Holy Spirit at Pentecost? Would he agree with Matthew’s version of the gospel, or John’s, or Paul’s, or nobody’s? Was Jesus even trying to start a religion? These and other questions would remain unanswered by the evidence, even if the resurrection could be proven.

And of course, early Christians who believed in the Resurrection had different answers to all these questions.1 The Ebionites thought Jewish law and ritual must be observed. The Marcionites thought that the god who sent Jesus had to be different than the vicious, genocidal god of the Jews. Gnostic Christians thought salvation came by learning secret truths. Basilidean Christians believed in 365 heavens, each with its own god.

The New Testament records such disagreements, too. Did Jesus say the Law would never perish (Matt. 5:17-19) or that it perished with John (Luke 16:16)? Is salvation only for the Jews (Matt. 15:24; Matt. 10:5-6; John 4:22) or also for the Gentiles (Acts 13:47-48)? Will salvation come to all who call on the Lord (Rom. 10:13; Acts 2:21.), or only to those predestined to be saved (Acts 13:48; Eph. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13; Acts 2:47)? Is anger itself a sin (Matt. 5:22) or not (Eph. 4:26)? Many times, the New Testament mentions other Christian groups that teach a “different gospel” (1 Tim. 1:3-7, 2 Tim. 2:17-18, 1 Cor. 15:12, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7), for example that Jesus never had a physical body. Paul thought Christians should abstain from sex altogether,2 but luckily for Christians, other leaders of the church disagreed – otherwise Christianity may not have survived more than a few generations.

The simple fact is that basic Christianity – what C.S. Lewis called Mere Christianity – depends on an astounding number of outlandish, often magical claims for which we do not – in some cases, cannot – have good evidence. This was not a problem when the religion began, when people had no need for evidence. But the modern Christian apologist – having grown up with a respect for evidence and reason but also a committed faith in the unprovable claims of Christianity – finds himself in quite a bind. He must always hope that a tiny shred of ancient, fragmentary evidence can verify just one claim of Christianity, and thereby verify all the others.

But it doesn’t work that way. Evidence that Joseph Smith really received the golden plates from the angel Moroni would not show that God exists, that he is good, that we will be punished for our “sins,” that dunking your head underwater cleanses you of sin, that we can speak in a holy language, or that the New Jerusalem will be built in America. Each needs its own proof. And even if Jesus rose from the dead, that does not give us any indication that Yahweh is God, that he is good, that he will torture disbelievers in hell and send believers to heaven, that salvation comes from belief in Jesus, that there are no other gods, or that Jesus listens to millions of prayers simultaneously. Even if the Resurrection is proved, we still have no evidence to support the other claims of basic Christianity. They are as unproven as the claims of Mormonism or Islam or Jainism or Norse mythology.

So, evidence for the Resurrection cannot do what Habermas and Licona wish it could do. But let us consider the evidence anyway. Did Jesus rise from the dead? How could we know?

The methods of history

Chapter 2 of the book describes how historians try to find out what actually happened in ancient history. The authors list 5 criteria that support the historicity of any event:

  1. Multiple, independent witnesses – If several witnesses who aren’t copying each other say the same thing, the event is more likely to have happened.
  2. Enemy witnesses – If an enemy of the event admits the event happened, it’s more likely to have happened.
  3. Embarassed witnesses – If a recorded event is something that wouldn’t have been made up by the author because it is embarrassing to his cause, the event is more likely to have happened.
  4. Eyewitness testimony – Eyewitness testimony is more valuable than hearsay.
  5. Early testimony – The closer a source is in time to the events it describes, the less time there was for the story to be embellished and corrupted.

Those criteria aren’t the only criteria, but they are accepted by nearly all historians. No complaints there.

The minimal facts approach

Next, Habermas and Licona explain their evangelistic strategy: the “minimal facts approach.” The idea is to use only facts that are well-supported by the evidence, and agreed upon by most scholars, to argue for the Resurrection. That way, the case does not depend on dubious ideas like the inerrancy of Scripture.

Here are the 5 “facts” Habermas and Licona use to argue for the Resurrection:

  1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
  2. Jesus’ disciples so strongly believed in the Resurrection that they were willing to suffer or die for their beliefs.
  3. The Christian persecutor Paul suddenly converted.
  4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, suddenly converted.
  5. The tomb was empty.

Considering the facts

Habermas and Licona write that these 5 facts, when put together, are strong evidence for the supernatural Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. On grounds of common sense, I must protest.

First, the conversions of Paul and James mean nothing. People change religions every day. George Harrison converted from Christianity to Hinduism – does that mean he really experienced Krishna? Muhammad Ali went from Baptist to Nation of Islam to Sunni Islam. Non-Christians also have spiritual visions and direct mystical experiences that change their lives forever.

Second, the willingness of the early apostles to die for their faith also means nothing, for a very simple reason: people of many other religions believed so strongly that they were willing to die for their false beliefs, too. Jews were willing to die for their belief that Yahweh didn’t want them to eat bacon.3 The early Muslims were willing to die for their beliefs, for example Sumayyah bint Khubbat and Husayn ibn Ali – to say nothing of modern suicide bombers. Thousands of adherents to Bábism (an offshoot of Islam) were put to death for their faith in the 1840s.4 Hundreds of Bahá’ís have been executed for their faith.5 Martyrdom for Vahiguru is a central practice of Sikhism. There have been martyrs for Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Scientology, paganism, Shintoism, and many other faiths. Martyrdom around the world shows the strong appeal of blind belief, not the actual truth of what is believed.

So, the only “fact” that might support the Resurrection story is the empty tomb. Was the tomb empty? Scholars disagree. Maybe, maybe not. But would that demonstrate a supernatural Resurrection?

Christians will say, “Of course it does! He died, and then his tomb was empty. What other explanation was there?” But that’s because Christians have heard this story so many times that they take it for granted. The story is so familiar that they cannot evaluate this claim on fresh ground.

Let’s make it fresh.

A parable

Say you live in a small village in Mongolia. Your sister gets sick and dies. You hold a ceremony with the villagers and then bury her.

A few days later, you discover the grave disturbed, and the body missing! What would you conclude? That your sister magically rose from the dead? Of course not. That is like explaining an odd-shaped bruise on your back by saying aliens visited Earth from millions of light years away, kidnapped you, examined your body, then erased your memories before plunking you back into bed.

Maybe somebody stole the body. But nobody in the village would do that, and there wasn’t anything valuable on the body. Well, okay, it’s unlikely somebody stole the body, but it still far more likely than the “magical resurrection” theory.

Or maybe she only seemed dead – she went into some kind of coma or hibernation where you couldn’t even tell she was breathing – and then she woke up and crawled out of the grave. That’s pretty outlandish, but at least we know of a few cases where that has happened.

Or maybe a bear dug up the grave and carried her body away to munch on it. That’s also pretty unlikely: maybe 1 in a million. Or 1 in 10 million. But since we don’t know of any magical resurrections happening in history, the odds of that happening are… what? Less than 1 in 10 billion?

Or maybe something happened that we don’t yet understand. Once upon a time our only possible explanations for lightning were magical ones, but that didn’t mean Zeus did it. It just meant we didn’t know. It was always foolish to invent Zeus to explain lightning, even when we didn’t understand electricity.

The core problem with the Resurrection

Now compare this story to the Resurrection of Jesus. Our earliest written accounts of Jesus’ Resurrection (1) were written only by Christian evangelists, (2) were compiled 20-70 years after the events they describe, (3) are so old they cannot be confirmed by physical evidence from the time, (4) come from a superstituous age of many similar mystery cults, (3) are internally contradictory, (4) and are contradictory between sources, too.

We have much better evidence than that for the angel Moroni’s revelation to Joseph Smith, the Hindu milk miracle of 1995, visitation by space aliens, the dancing sun at Fatima, and many other modern phenomena. And yet most Christians do not believe those were genuine events.

Why not? After all, the evidence is much better for these than for the ancient Resurrection of Jesus!

I can tell you why. Christians do not believe those things happened because they are so inherently improbable that they are much more likely to have a natural explanation than to have actually occurred. Even if it is hard to think that Joseph Smith and his early followers conspired to make the whole thing up, even if it is hard to imagine how so many Hindus could be misled, even if it is hard to imagine why so many people would report alien encounters and then make fake alien corpses and videotape them, even if it is difficult to think that 70,000 people worked themselves into a hallucinatory frenzy staring directly into the sun – those explanations are far better than to say that an angel actually gave Joseph Smith some Golden Plates of cosmic wisdom, or that invisible Hindu spirits got thirsty for milk one day, or that aliens traveled for millions of years to covertly kidnap some farmers, or that the sun suddenly careened toward the earth in a zigzag pattern.

What’s more, a Christian not need give a second thought to stories of alien visitation or thirsty Hindu gods. It is obvious those things did not really happen, according to his own common sense. To believe such bizarre stories, a Christian would need so much evidence that it would be a greater miracle to conspire to create so the evidence than for aliens to travel for millions of years just to prod some ranchers. And of course the evidence is much weaker than that, so the Christian does not believe such claims.

If the Christian will consider his own common sense – which he applies to all other religious, paranormal, and outrageous claims – and apply it to the Resurrection of Jesus, he will see immediately that the case for the Resurrection falls mute.

There are also many criticisms I could make of specific arguments in the book, as others have done so thoroughly, but that would only obscure this central, fatal, common-sense problem with the Resurrection of Jesus.

  1. The 20th century was ripe with research into the earliest forms of Christianity, and it has found great diversity in Christian origins. Walter Bauer’s Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (published 1934, read parts of it online here) argued that heretical forms of Christianity were not corruptions of the “original, orthodox” faith, but that earliest Christianity embraced a wide variety of beliefs and practices, and only much later did Pauline/Roman Christianity exert its wealth and power to squash the others and become what we know today as Christianity. While many of Bauer’s specific arguments have been refuted (for example see Rodney Decker’s Rehabilitation of Heresy), recent discoveries (the Nag Hammadi library, etc.) have shown that early Christianity was even more diverse than Bauer could have known. []
  2. See 1 Cor. 7:1-7. Paul’s doctrine survives in the lifelong chastity of priests, monks, and nuns. Originally, priests would marry as usual, but then they looked less dedicated than monks and nuns, who embraced chastity. It wouldn’t do for the leaders of the church to seem less devoted than monks and nuns, so priests and bishops said goodbye to sex in the 5th century. See Cheetham’s History of the Christian Church During the First Six Centuries, pages 350-352. []
  3. See First and Second Maccabees. []
  4. See The Specter of Ideological Genocide: The Bahá’ís of Iran by Friedrich W. Affolter. []
  5. See Discrimination against religious minorities in Iran by the International Federation for Human Rights. []

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }

Geoffrey of Ballard March 26, 2009 at 5:37 pm

A slightly separate question is: Why do Christians want to establish the resurrection as a historical event? Shouldn't it be enough to believe it on faith? Even if there was overwhelming evidence, wouldn't it still require faith?

Skeptics are often accused of being “post-enlightenment” and thus unable to believe such things without evidence. I have the beginnings of a theory that fundamentalism and a belief in bodily resurrection both sprout from the same desire to back one's beliefs with rational evidence.


Nathan May 9, 2009 at 5:46 pm

I would like to respond to your above comments. I would argue that the conversion of Paul and James mean much more than you acknowledge. First let me ask a question. Why did these two change their religions? Was it because they “heard” about the resurrection or was it because the claimed to have personally encountered the risen Christ? Obviously the latter. This means their conversion is fundamentally different than that of Harrison and Muhammad. They didn’t just have a “religious experience”. They claimed to be an eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection, which makes it the resurrection plausible because Paul was an enemy and James a skeptic. However, just because someone claims to be an eyewitness doesn’t necessarily mean he or she is telling the truth. James and Paul went on to willingly suffer and die for their eyewitness testimony. Men do not willingly die for something they know is a lie. Or in other words, liars make poor martyrs. Your error is that you have taken these two facts and looked at them separately when they should be viewed as a whole. Which is Habermas and Licona’s main point. What explanation best accounts for all the facts? After one considers all 5 facts the best explanation is that Jesus has indeed reason.


lukeprog May 9, 2009 at 6:55 pm

Where did James and Paul claim to be witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection? Paul very precisely had a religious vision, the paradigm case of religious experience, and one that happens in all religions, and causes many people to be radicals for other religions. We don’t know anything at all about James’ conversion, and our accounts of it are bits of millennia-old hearsay. Hardly something on which to build a case for something that we otherwise know to be physically impossible and contrary to everything we have ever experienced under reliable conditions.


Nathan May 10, 2009 at 1:50 pm

The book above lays out five facts that most all serious historians agree on, whether they are Christian or not.  So if there is a consensus among historians then it is very plausible that both James and Paul claimed to have witnessed of the risen Christ.

To be sure Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 (which almost every scholar attributes to Paul): 

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.



Ryan July 15, 2009 at 1:15 am

You should see my article “Was Jesus Raised from the Dead? : A Response to William Lane Craig’s Resurrection Argument”


I also have an article on the resurrection to be published in about three weeks.



StevenCArr September 9, 2009 at 11:06 pm

Gary Habermas claims it is a fact that James was converted by the resurrection of Jesus and that James was a witness to the resurrection.
Acts 1
 14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
 15In those days Peter stood up among the believers….Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”
 So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias.

So the very brothers of Jesus were believers and they weren’t even in consideration to become witnesses to the resurrection?
So how did James make the list in 1 Corinthians 15?
Why did Luke introduce the brothers of Jesus only to immediately disqualify them as even being considered as candidates for witnesses to the resurrection?
How could James have been a witness to the resurrection, when Acts says the entire church discussed the matter and chose between two other people to become witnesses to the resurrection?
If Habermas is convinced of the resurrection by the ‘fact’ that James, the brother of Jesus was converted by this alleged resurrection, why does Acts rule out every brother of Jesus as a candidate for the position of ‘witness to the resurrection’?


KKairos October 22, 2009 at 2:17 pm

Sooner or later, I find my ‘common sense’ crumbles in the face of what really does seem to be the best explanation. It’s not any one event recorded or alluded in the Gospels and Epistles (in the case of the Resurrection), and it’s not any one aspect, for instance, of the Miracle of the Sun and associated alleged apparitions (which I also am inclined to believe), it’s the whole damn set of facts together. I try to use my ‘common sense’ to explain these things away, and it invariably runs up against some inconvenient fact of the case.

I have not examined UFO claims or the claim of Ganesh drinking the milk sufficiently to say whether the facts of those cases perform a similar violence on my rationalism, making me question similarly whether my rationalism is truly reasonable. But theologically I do not see any problem with simply biting the bullet for the time being: Especially being an Inclusivist, I don’t really see the issue in accepting that those things happened and may indeed have been, at least in terms of being alien-caused or supernatural, what they appeared.

Also, Re:Paul. That whole business about advancing in Judaism beyond many of his age, basically having a whole freaking reputation to lose by following The Way…One criterion I have to wonder about with these hallucinations that I think might be understated:

“Who hallucinates this stuff?”


J Nernoff III M.D. December 8, 2009 at 3:23 pm

I will make this short. I am a retired board certified forensic pathologist. Jesus was never diagnosed as having died. Yes, that is correct. There’s no report of a physical examination of Jesus’ body in the Bible. There’s no mention of a lack of pulse, lack of breathing, absent reflexes, low body temperature, rigor mortis, livor mortis or decomposition (among many other criteria for death).

No death, no resurrection.

Christians are clever. They say the “swoon theory” was discredited years ago, but this is not true. They don’t want you to examine the facts, or, as in this case, the lack of them. They want you to ASSUME they have answered this problem when they have never answered it at all.

Only an unnamed centurion said Jesus died but this declaration is accompanied by a polemical religious statement, “Surely this man is the Son of God.”

I will continue on these forums as my time permits. Look into it.


cconlin August 17, 2010 at 6:16 pm

Not once did the reviewer here attempt to argue against the facts used to support the 5 claims mentioned. The reviewer makes it seem as if the authors make the 5 claims and that is it. The “fact” is, is that there are 75 pages filed with sources and other information used to back up the claims. Note that not all sources are Christian or sympathetic toward Christians either.

The one the reviewer did attempt to actually repsond to (people suffering and dying for their beliefs) is actually respondeed to by the authors on page 59 in part reads : “The apostles died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary marytrs die for what they believe to be true.”

Such an oversight could make one wonder how much and how well the review actully read the book.


Tshepang Lekhonkhobe August 19, 2010 at 4:13 am

This is one of the best posts I’ve seen on this great blog.


lukeprog August 19, 2010 at 8:17 am



Panage October 9, 2010 at 2:20 am

I would like to respond to Dr. J. Nernoff III M.D. In regards to Jesus’ death was never recoginised nor diagnosed. This is interesting as one asks the question, how can one expect to find “medical records” from 2000 years ago? The probabilities of retrieving people’s medical examinations (including birth certificates) from non western countries today are slim. I expect that someone of your calibre and knowledge would some how understand this… However since you insist on “medical records” Let’s examine some medical implications that were inflicted on Jesus’ crucifixion 2000 years ago.

1) Jesus sweats blood at Gethsemane (LK .22:44).
Hemathidrosis is a very rare medical condition that excludes blood from every sweat gland in a person’s body. When a small capillary raptures, the sweat glands begin to bleed, rather than perspiring sweat, a person perspires blood. The condition ‘Hemathidrosis’ is usually associated in people who have encountered tremendous stress and agony.

2) Scourging:
Historical accounts tell us that the traditional Roman scourging consisted of thirty-nine lashes. They used a whip that was called a flagrum that contained small pieces of bone and metal, attached to a number of leather strands. A person was usually stripped naked, tied by the wrists to a post then afflicted to the point usually that their intestines, arteries, and veins were laid bare. They were scourged to the extent that their bodies were so disfigured and unrecognisable. The chances of surviving this horrible torture were extremely bleak even under the bests of conditions.

3) The Crucifixion:
Jesus was then dragged out in to the public view, carrying the crossbar of the cross, over his shoulders, weighing 80 – 110 pounds and expected to walk approximately 650 yards to his death (Golgotha), where he were impaled on to a cross and then left hanging there in excruciating pain. In order for a crucifixion victim to exhale, they would have to pull up against the spikes with their hands, and push up against the spikes with their feet. The likelihood of Jesus’ death was suffocation.

4) The death of Jesus:
Jesus was already dead when a centurion delivered a deathblow by thrusting a spear into the right side of Jesus’ body. However, if the deathblow was the cause of death, then the inferior and superior vena cave would empty on the right side of the heart, causing unconsciousness and instant death.

The resurrection of Jesus has validity in my view than the swoon theory or any other theory in that matter.

Thank you for reading


Victor October 15, 2010 at 2:35 pm


Nobody can come back to life 3 days after death. That is a law of nature. These Christians people are delusional.

If Jesus existed and he had such supernatural powers, he would never have died. He would have turned the nails into toothpicks, killed his assailants with a bolt of lightning and would be walking around and preaching still. And if he resurrected, where is he?

If he died again, why did he not resurrect again?

Since he is not here, he obvious never existed or died without resurrecting.


dwight carlson February 20, 2011 at 9:06 pm

Yes Jesus is not physically present on the earth today, and yes as God he could have instantly come down from the cross, and he could have stayed longer and even provided more proof of his existence, but that would go against the whole message in the bible. Let me briefly explain the plan of God as told in the bible that you must not be aware of based on your statements. It was predicted in the bible that he “Jesus” would come to earth as a man to provide salvation for all mankind. It was predicted in the bible that he would suffer and die on a cross. It was predicted in the bible he would be raised on the third day. It tells you in the bible that he would ascend to heaven and go to the right hand of the Father on his throne. It tells you he Jesus will return in the near future to Judge the world. He was fulfilling previously stated prophecy, so that is exactly what he did. When man first sinned in his perfect environment, he was fallen and removed from his perfect environment. Jesus voluntarily came to earth to die and pay for our sins so that he might buy us back into the presence of a Perfect and Holy God. It is free for all and thus fair, but their is a but, and the but is you must have faith that it occurred without you having seen it. I think a God who can create the entire universe and you is certainly big enough to pull that off since he created nature and science as well. Read the 3rd chapter of John in the bible as it explains a portion of what I have stated and you should always read it for yourself anyway.
PS. ask yourself where did the laws of nature come from? I mean the very first moment of absolutely anything…how did it start and who started it?


Frank March 13, 2011 at 4:05 pm

Yes, I agree with Dwight: Life is too complex for it to have occured by random collisions of particles. The DNA Molecule is a perfect example of this….it is in the form of a code. It is statistically impossible for this code to have happened all by itself. You have no idea how complex this code is. Try Googling it. Codes come from some form of intelligence: a being that is smart enough to create a coded message. We frequently give this intelligence the name God. So we know a creator exists. (Yes, the code could have been brought to earth by aliens but then we just transport the problem of the existence of God to some other planet). So if there is a creator who created a code in our DNA, is it reasonable to assume that that creator would have tried to communicate with us? Then could it be reasonable to say that a holy book could have been somehow put together so this creator could communicate with the created? Now if that did not work for some reason, say, after thousands of years of trying, would it be reasonable for that creator to come to his own creation to attempt further communication?
Come now: let us reason together! (A quote from the Creator).
The bible says(John Chapter 1) that Jesus was in the beginning with God and that He was God. Get a Bible and look in the Beginning! (Genesis): it says that God says: “Let US make man in OUR image”. Who was he talking to? A bit further down the page (back to John 1) it says that “without Him (Jesus), nothing was made”: so according to the Bible, Jesus was there and Being God Himself, Made everything. So Jesus is The Creator. Look this stuff up your selves. God is a rewarder of them that (diligently) seek Him. He does not come easy to people like you (Victor). Seek Him! There are no easy answers. You want Him to just appear to you and say: Hey! Look here! I am God! Believe in me!? It (He) does not work that way. Or maybe you want someone else to do the work of proving God to you… Don’t be so lazy. Your eternal destiny is at stake. Nothing comes easy in this life. Why would faith be any different? I have heard of those who set out to disprove the idea of God and Jesus and they only became fervent believers. (research Josh McDowell). Maybe you should take this approach.
The Creator came, died to purchase you from Satan with the most expensive thing in the Universe: His own Blood!… Because He loves you and does not want you to be apart from Him forever. Believe!…Believe in the Lord (God) Jesus Christ and You Shall be Saved! Acts 16: 31.
Don’t take the easy broad path. Atheism is so easy. Take the Narrow Road. Stand for something eternal. The Bible is an absolutely amazing book: don’t sell it short. Read it! I pray that God Himself blesses your search.


Leave a Comment