Considering the question of whether belief in God lacks the evidence to support it - and why arguments on their own are not enough.

Did Jesus claim or imply that he was anything more than a prophet? Or did his followers transform him into the Son of God many years later?

Are the Gospels full of contradictions? What would have been seen as normal standards of trustworthy historical writing at that time?

Did the early Christian communities apply Jesus's teaching to the problems they faced or alter the facts to fit their agendas?

Were the Gospel accounts based on the testimony of eyewitnesses who were still alive when the Gospels were written?

Were the Gospel accounts corrupted as they were passed on? Was there any way to prevent this happening?

How big are the differences between the hand-written copies of the Gospels' accounts of Jesus? Do these undermine what we can know about…

Can we be confident that we have the original text of the Gospels? How does it compare to other ancient documents?

Three questions to ask your history teacher when they claim you can't trust the Gospels.