In this second episode of her three‑part "Reconstruction Series," Julie Chenell tackles two central questions for Christian apologetics: the plausibility of miracles in the Gospels and what Jesus’ own claims imply about his identity. She begins by offering a working definition of miracles as events that occur outside the regular operation of natural law, then critiques David Hume’s classic objection that miracles are inherently improbable. Chenell argues that Hume commits a category error: natural laws describe what happens when nature is left to itself, so they actually make miracles detectable rather than impossible. She emphasizes that the rarity of miracles is intentional, serving as a sign of divine intervention and validating Jesus’ authority, especially in episodes like the healing of the paralytic where Jesus links forgiveness of sins to a physical miracle. Next, Chenell shifts to epistemology, contending that absolute 100 % certainty is neither required nor realistic for any belief. She likens belief in miracles to everyday decisions made on probabilistic confidence (e.g., flying in an airplane). Christianity, she says, invites rational confidence based on evidence, not irrational certainty. The third major segment introduces C.S. Lewis’s “Christ trilemma” – Jesus must be either Lord, lunatic, or liar – and argues that the “good teacher” option is logically untenable. She surveys the Gospel portrait of Jesus, supplemented by a ChatGPT‑generated psychological profile, highlighting traits such as emotional stability, compassion, humility, moral consistency, and lack of grandiose delusion. These characteristics, she asserts, rule out the lunatic and liar possibilities, leaving the conclusion that Jesus is who he claimed to be. Finally, Chenell previews the next episode, which will examine the resurrection as the ultimate miracle, setting the stage for the series’ concluding argument.
Chapters
Hey everyone, welcome back to the Reconstruction Series. My name is Julie and we are going through a 3-part series. Today is part 2, which is what do we do about miracles and who Jesus claimed that he was. In episode number 1, we talked about the accuracy of the gospel accounts. Can we actually trust the manuscripts and the accounts that we have? I argued that there was no reason to talk about Jesus and the resurrection if we couldn't first unpack and agree that the gospel accounts are in fact valid, true, and historical accounts. Where we left off in that episode is that historians, even secular historians, do not take issue with the gospels except for this one point: there are miracles described in the gospels. If the gospels were just a telling of Jesus's life and death and ministry, there would be no controversy or contention. So we have to deal with the miracles and who Jesus really said he was. That's what we're going to talk about today. Let's start by defining what miracles are, because we need to have a working definition that we can all agree on. So I'm going to read this: miracles are events that occur outside the laws of nature that govern this Earth. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. Since the laws of nature are established by uniform experience, no test testimony can ever be sufficient to prove a miracle. This is credited by David Hume, I think is how you say his name. Hume's objection. It's the most common argument that people make against miracles. The basis, of course, is that because miracles are technically like the least likely explanation for anything, you know, other than a natural one, even a far-fetched It must always be more probable that there's a natural explanation, not a miraculous explanation. That's the idea. There's a category error that's being made here. I learned this from a very interesting podcast on Mike Winger's Think Biblically podcast. I definitely won't do it justice. I hope that I'm explaining it well here, but you can go watch that. I'll link it up in the chat below. But a miracle technically doesn't violate natural law. It happens outside of it. Okay. So the, the category nature, the category error here is treating the laws of nature as if they describe anything that could ever happen, when in reality, the laws of nature describe what happens when nature is left to itself. Put another way, natural law doesn't make miracles impossible. It makes them detectable. This is the huge aha when people have this objection where they say, oh, you know, miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. You know, no testimony can ever be sufficient. They're making this category error because the laws of nature are what happens when nature is left to itself. So when something happens outside of that, we call it a miracle. If we didn't have the natural laws, we wouldn't be able to detect miracles. Okay? I just want to make that point. They are rare by design. And if we look at the Gospels and we talk about every miracle Jesus did, he was doing it for what reason? He was doing it to prove that he was who he said he was. I remember The scripture, I don't recall where it is, where he talks, he heals the paralytic man and they question him and he said, you know, he also forgives his sins. And he says, what's easier to say, your sins are forgiven or pick up your mat and walk? His point was like, the harder thing is to forgive sin. Like, that's actually the big problem that you all have right here. But to prove that I am the authority to forgive sin, I'm going to also show you a miracle. If miracles were common, the signs that Jesus did wouldn't mean anything. It wouldn't point to his divinity. That's the point. So the rarity of miracles doesn't make them less believable in principle. That is the point I'm trying to make. People say, well, you know, they're so rare, they're— it's not likely, but it's actually part of it. It's very logical, like the rarity of miracles is helping us to detect when God is at work. Okay? So if you believe in God, of course, you're naturally going to believe in miracles. He created the laws of nature. It's very possible that he can intervene on the laws of nature or go around the law of nature when he chooses. It's always interesting to me that people say they believe in God, but then they don't believe in miracles. It's like, okay, well, what kind of God do you believe in? Do you believe in a God that actually created the laws of the universe? Like, It's really not hard for a creator who created everything we see around us in universes and black holes and sun and planets and the intricacy of our human body. You think it's hard for him to heal a lame man or restore sight to the blind? He literally made the laws of nature you're claiming prove that he doesn't exist. It's just crazy. Okay. That is the philosophical, logical argument side for the presence of miracles. The next argument that comes up is, well, how can I be 100% 100% certain. You know, we read about these stories in the gospels. Okay, I understand they're historical documents. I understand like the, the principle of miracles, but like, how can I be sure? It's a psychological trap. Okay. None of us actually operate in 100% certainty. We just don't. Like when you get in the car, you don't have 100% certainty you're not gonna get into an accident. When you get on an airplane, you don't have 100% certainty that it's not gonna fall outta the sky. When you sit down to eat a steak dinner, you're not 100% certain that steak, steak isn't riddled with some terrible disease that's going to kill you. We do so many things without 100% certainty. So what do we do? We act. Why? Because our confidence is rationally justified by probability and evidence, not absolute proof. When you get on an airplane, The probability of crashing is very low. The evidence for the fact that a big hunk of metal can stay in the sky is high. Okay? So we use that as confidence. Do we have absolute 100% proof? No, but we have it in nothing. And I find it interesting that we operate our entire lives with this principle undergirding all of our decisions, and yet when it comes to miracles and the gospels, In Jesus Christ, we say we need 100% certainty. Okay? Christianity invites rational confidence. It does not suggest or invite irrational certainty. Okay? He presented the gospels with so much evidence that it would be considered unreasonable from a rational standpoint to say that this is not true. Okay? The third, is, this is the third argument when it comes to Jesus. This is my favorite one because it's the most illogical of them all, and I feel like I can argue this one pretty clearly, and it's, I believe he was a good teacher, I believe he was a prophet, and he did miracles, but I don't know that he's really actually, like, the Son of God. C.S. Lewis is the one who coined this term, like, the Christ trilemma, I think is what it's called. He basically said Jesus can be a lord, he can be a lunatic, or he can be a liar. You have to choose one of those three. He cannot be a good teacher or a good prophet. And we discussed in the last episode that the only other religion that at least acknowledges this, because Islam does not, and other religions like Buddhists and Hindus can can acknowledge Jesus as like a good moral teacher. And we're breaking down why that's actually not logically consistent. The only other religion that is logically consistent are the Jewish, the Orthodox Jewish people. They put him in the category of a liar. They think he's a false prophet. So at least they're making a choice, right? If you have a, if you have a New Age friend that's like, oh, Jesus was an amazing teacher. No, no, no. You only get 3 choices. He can be Lord, he can be lunatic or liar by the laws of just like logic. Here's why. Okay? It's not a fancy argument. Jesus made astounding claims in the Gospels. He claimed the authority to forgive sin, divine authority. He claimed to be one with God. He claimed that he pre-existed Abraham, who lived thousands of years before him. He also claimed that every human being's eternal status depended on believing in him. His words are either true or false. If they are true, he is God and a great teacher. He's Lord. He is worthy of our praise. If his words are false, however, he was in a grand delusion and he was a master manipulator of crowds. There was no good moral teacher happening here. He was a charlatan. He was a false prophet. He was a liar. And in order to look at, in order to make that conclusion, this is where the Orthodox Jews land. Do we have evidence that he was a manipulator, mass delusion, like expert, narcissist, imposter, charlatan? Do we have evidence of that? I actually, this, I went to ChatGPT and I said, hey, can you round up all the qualities that you see in Jesus in the Gospels? And this is what it came up with. It said, consistent emotional stability, calm under pressure, before Pilate, during betrayal, on the cross, never shows paranoia, never manic highs or lows, no loss of contact with reality. Okay? Profound empathy, weeping over Jerusalem and Lazarus, for example. Showing compassion for the sick, for the poor, for the disenfranchised. He was absent of self-aggrandizement. Absent of self-aggrandizement, right? He rejected fame after miracles. He was often saying like, don't say anything. He would withdraw from crowds when they would try to make him king. He lived with no wealth, no political status, no home, no privilege. Case in point, he was very humble. He washed the disciples' feet, right? He talked about how the greatest among you would be a servant. He had a ton of intellectual and moral coherence every time he talked about his teachings. They weren't erratic. They weren't contradictory. They were ethical. They were clear. They were universal. He wasn't defensive. There was no signs of grandiose fantasy. He never built this, like, cultic hierarchy. He never demanded sex. He never demanded blind obedience, never demanded luxury. His claims of divinity were always tied to moral teaching, not domination, right? He also showed self-sacrifice over self-preservation. He formed a lot of deep relationships with people who then went to death, went to their death to defend him, like Peter, John, and others. He allowed others to question him. He didn't rage or punish them. He had moral genius, and it was internally consistent and psychologically sound. These were all the things ChatGPT said about Jesus. There's no suggestion whatsoever in the gospel that he was a lunatic or a liar. That is not reasonable. It is not reasonable. It does not— he does not fit any of the qualifications of a lunatic or a liar. The idea that he was a moral good teacher without taking into account his claims also logically falls apart. The only conclusion that is left is that he was exactly who he said he was. What we're going to do next in episode 3 is we're going to look more closely at the biggest miracle of all, the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I'll see you then.
