Why is the discussion starting here?

One of the most important steps you can take in evaluating the issues that come up in life is to ask what assumptions are being made at the beginning of a discussion. Is the conversation starting where it ought to? Are people beginning their reasoning with some false assumptions, in terms of a false concept of what happened in a certain historical context, false priorities, or whatever else?

For example, when critics of Christianity try to cast doubt on something like the authorship of the gospels or their genre, and they object to how few sources Christians are citing in support of their position or how late the sources are, how does the critic's position compare? How many and how late are the sources supporting his position? If there's an assumption that the skeptic shouldn't be expected to show any support for his positions among the ancient sources, is that a valid assumption?

Or when there's a controversy surrounding a Marian apparition or a paranormal case of some other type, what explanatory options are people starting with? Are they taking the relevant factors into account?

Or when an advocate of baptismal regeneration begins a discussion with a large number of exceptions in mind to the rule of baptismal regeneration that he's advocating (people who lived in the Old Testament era, people who lived during Jesus' public ministry, Cornelius, martyrs who died without being baptized, catechumens who died without being baptized, etc.), should those exceptions be granted without supporting arguments? If supporting arguments are offered, are they adequate? Even if it's popular to allow the advocate of baptismal regeneration to assume a lot of exceptions to the rule without arguing for them, should you be going along with that popular practice?

It's important to think through issues like these. Be cautious about how discussions are framed and how they proceed.

Where are the laborers?

One of the issues I've often discussed here over the years is who we should pray to. Should we pray to saints and angels or only pray to God? And I've sometimes mentioned that the issue of who we should pray to is unusually difficult to discuss, because advocates of praying to saints and angels so often behave so poorly (category confusions, the use of forgeries, poor handling of the dating of sources, etc.). You can find a discussion of some examples here.

But another problem that makes the situation even worse is how apathetic, ignorant, misinformed, and uninvolved the large majority of opponents of prayer to saints and angels are. The people on that side of the argument who even come close to handling it well are few and far between. The neglect of the issue has never made sense to me.

And there are similar circumstances in a lot of other contexts. For example, advocates of baptismal regeneration and opponents of eternal security can make highly inaccurate claims about the historical theology relevant to those doctrines, as they often do, and rarely get much of a response from the other side.

The few people who handle the issues well shouldn't be expected to do more and more. There ought to be more people doing the work.

"The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest." (Matthew 9:37-38)

"Here am I. Send me!" (Isaiah 6:8)

Neglected Evidence For The Authorship Of The Fourth Gospel

A neglected line of evidence for the fourth gospel's authorship is how closely John 19:35, 20:31, and 21:24 align with what Jesus said about the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the work of the apostles, and other issues in John 14-17. What the author of the document says in the passages I cited from John 19-21 seems to allude to Jesus' earlier comments in chapters 14-17. The implication is that the author of the fourth gospel is fulfilling what Jesus predicted. He's suggesting that he's one of the apostles Jesus was addressing in chapters 14-17.