Apologetic Methodology and a Report

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James White director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 and now with today's topic. Here is James White.

Brief Report on the Unbelievable Program with Brian McLaren

You know when I sat down behind this microphone for the first time today. It was completely pitch black outside and While I was on the air, I saw the Sun coming up and now it's on the other side of where the cars are parked.

That's because I sat down behind this microphone 11 11 and a half hours ago approximately 4 30 a .m. And Some of you know if you follow my Twitter account, I may have mentioned on the blog I don't know.

But if you've if you just have resisted Twitter it's the way a lot of us put quick announcements out now, you know rather than making people read something on a blog and RSS feeds and all that stuff. That's for longer stuff.

That's for stuff where you got to go more than 140 characters. You just want to let people know what's going on. You know, my Twitter stuff goes to my Facebook account and blah blah blah. It's just it's it's Skynet.

But who knew I mean could we have ever done the Terminator movies if the computer program wasn't called Skynet, but it was called Google. You really can't see Google nuking all of humanity, you know, it's a Google Terminator.

But I can't hear you you're you're you're not on.

Can you imagine.

Named tweet the Turk the Terminator name. Yeah, anyway, so I sat down here this morning and Why was I here at 4 30 in the morning? Because at 505 the phone rang and Justin Briarley of the unbelievable radio broadcast in lovely London there in the United Kingdom called me and.

For about an hour We had a little program. We record a program which will air this Saturday on Unbelievable there on the premier radio network or as they say the premier Christian Christian. Sounds like Christian to us, but then again, he calls it Alpha Omega.

So It's just it's just the differences across the pond. If you're listening Justin, it's Alpha Omega. Actually, I don't know what Omega is. What you keep putting that thing over there? Are they doing something this week over there?

Oh, yeah, they got something going on. Yeah on Friday. I don't know. I don't know. Actually to be honest with you Kelly got up back right after we were married for the royal wedding and I don't know what time because back then, you know.

They said 4 a .m. Eastern Time. So that's like 1 a .m. Out here and now it's just like panty VR. But what was that 82. Yeah, was that 1982. I think yes, she got up. I got it.

I got a kick out of one of the talking heads. Yesterday, I'm watching him and the guy's just rolling his eyes. You know what. Just get on with it get get them married so we can start the scandals.

Well, let's hope not let's hope that doesn't happen but anyway this morning there in in London we We had a very very interesting program wherein I had a Now we need to use the right terminology a dialogue a discussion a talk.

With Brian McLaren. Brian McLaren the granddaddy of the emergent church movement. When Justin contacted me, I believe last Thursday And said would you do this? I was just like oh man, dude I've already fallen behind here, but I felt that it was it was and a very worthwhile invitation and so I You know, I I've sort of been on the outside emergent church has no impact on Reformed Baptist in general.

So it's not something that I'm really focused upon. But I've spoken on relevant subjects to it. I've listened to da Carson talking about it and you know stuff like that and so. Again I I don't think I could have done this or certainly not as easily If it were not for technology, not only the fact that I was on I'll be on a radio program in London and I was sitting right where I'm sitting right now here in Phoenix, but Due to the fact that I was able to immediately purchase three of Brian McLaren's books that night went home plugged my Kindle into my Mac and recorded a new kind of Christianity and Started listening to it the very next day on a lengthy ride and Also got through a generous orthodoxy on another lengthy ride and You know that would have been very difficult to do you have to find a bookstore go out find the book I couldn't have done it on rides.

That's for sure. And so we got prepared and you know. Some people would go man you really invest a lot of time and that type of stuff. It it helped. It really really did help. Did we get to talk about everything.

I would like to have talked about no, for example We never got to talk about homosexuality and I I think that's extremely relevant. There were all sorts of quotes from his books. I would like to have brought up would like to have mentioned Didn't get to those.

But I.

Think as far as actually covering the important stuff the foundational issues. Why we differ.

I.

Couldn't have been more pleased. I really couldn't have. I was concerned about it. I didn't know exactly how Brian McLaren would dialogue. I'll be honest with you folks Some of you who are my my good dear brothers and sisters in the Lord One of the reasons that these emergent folks Respond the way they do to those of us who are conservatives a they're almost all formerly conservative folks themselves.

That's first thing but be they get knee-jerk reactions from us and Remember remember the Bob Price debate. Why was Bob Price so willing to dialogue with me and why that goes so well? Because I spent stinking months Learning what he believed and I accurately represented him now.

I didn't spend stinking months on Brian McLaren. I didn't need to. I went to fuller. Okay, so the language and stuff and then that whole that whole shtick I I already understood it, but I took the time to obtain his books listen to what he said quoted him in context and Demonstrated that I did understand what he was saying and I think it took him aback.

I think that there were a number of times. He was stuttering a little bit. Because either I'd had I didn't don't drink coffee, but I've been getting up really early in the morning to ride. Anyway, so it wasn't like it was.

I mean I had been riding for over half an hour the day before when this started. So it wasn't that difficult for me to get going that time of the morning, but I'm used to doing radio. I know you have to get your points in you need to have a certain cadence to what you're saying and at the same time I Had taken the time to really think through What it is they're saying and instead of just saying well, that's different what we believe so you're a heretic.

Yeah, what he's saying is heresy but when you demonstrate that you've heard what they're saying. I learned this at fuller, you know, I graduated with honors magna cum laude from fuller and Rarely did I have a professor who was anywhere near as conservative as me.

Why did I get normally the highest grades in the class? Because they could tell I Had taken the time to listen to what they were saying even in my disagreement my disagreement was respectful and had a foundation to it and that's what I tried to do there and as a result, I Think those of you who were banging your heads on desks With the Rob Bell interview will not be banging your heads on your desks nearly as much With this one and that wasn't Adrian Warnock's fault.

Brian McLaren is a considerably deeper thinker than Rob Bell is and he's a much better writer. I mean, you know Rob Bell's Twitter book just just drove me insane. Brian McLaren taught English his degrees are in literature.

So he's not a dummy and that doesn't mean he's not completely wrong, but he's not a dummy and He tried to at least hear what I was saying and respond to it and Rob Bell didn't bother doing that. I mean, and what was the primary Rob Bell response on unbelievable?

Well, do you? Well to you I Mean it was just it was just you it was worse than nailing jello to a wall. It was it was it's just simply impossible. But yeah, there are a couple times McLaren went off on a tangent that's just the nature of being a postmodernist and the nature of of his beliefs, but I really do think that we we really discuss some important stuff some really really important stuff on that and So I was really pleased with with the interview and the dialogue That took place and I think it really laid out the issues very clearly.

So I'm looking forward to Saturday. We will of course link to it as soon as it is posted. Which will probably first thing Saturday morning because I think it airs in the afternoon over there. Yeah, it'll probably be around let's see if it's four o 'clock there'll probably be around eight o 'clock here When it airs and I think it goes live after that.

So No, Rob Bell didn't dialogue with me. We're talking about the program the week before. Somebody in the channel is confused.

But.

Very thankful to Justin Briarley for the invite and And hope that I also hope that the quality of the signal that we provided was enough that Might get a chance to do that again in the future with other relevant topics.

Especially, you know, it's sort of like, you know I used to write a lot for the CRI Journal and one of the reasons I did is they knew that they could contact me in an emergency and I would Provide them with something that was quite usable in a in a short period of time.

The Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona Dialogue on the Resurrection

It's not hard to do that anymore, but Hopefully we'll have that kind of opportunity again. Speaking of the unbelievable radio program We have been listening to the unbelievable radio program specifically the Bart Ehrman Mike Laicona encounter.

We still have approximately twelve and a half minutes left to listen to once we finish this up I'd like to hear what you think about what we have said. I have been critical of both Mike and Bart Bart because he's a good naturalist and Mike because he's good evidentialist and Hopefully respectful to both men and I have hopefully emphasized the fact I believe Mike Laicona is my brother in the Lord and That I hope that he takes my criticism for what it is.

We have fundamental theological and methodological differences as to how we do apologetics and therefore We have to speak the truth and I would like to say I would like to think that the criticisms that I've offered You know need to be learned need to be learned from and listened to because I think that we're gonna get to the end here and once again Mike's gonna make a statement he's gonna end this debate on a statement and and just on a on a Simple basis here personal word to Mike Laicona.

Don't end your debates the way you do. I've heard this two or three times now with a statement that instead of Making a point and being memorable in people's minds and wrapping things up is It's when we at Phoenix Foreign Baptist Church sing the amen really badly, which is generally what we do, but There sometimes it's really bad I mean No, two of us are on the same note and or in the same register the same key Right, and it just it just the whole song may have been great.

But the last thing you hear is and it's just that's not how you do it and I keep hearing Mike Laicona Ending ending debates with statements that just leave everybody sitting there. I Remember so clearly Peter Stravinsky's remembers Peter Stravinsky's his closing statement in our debate on purgatory.

It was it was debate suicide. It was it was debate. Harry Carey is what it was. It was it was Japanese ritual suicide where you you know, you cut your guts out I mean, that's what it was. It was it had no connection to what had come before and it was just completely lame and you could just see the Catholics in the audience sitting on the edge of their chairs going please give us something to be happy about here and Nothing there at all and it was bad.

So that's what's gonna happen here, too Unfortunately, so hey, we'll take your phone calls at eight seven seven seven five three three, three, four one. Do we have Skype up today? Skype at dividing that line at Skype and Like I said, we've got 12 minutes here.

What time is it 14 afternoon? We might have last 15 minutes or so if I as long as I don't talk too much But anyways, let's dive back into right where we finished off last time with the Barterman Mike Laicona dialogue.

It's not kind of totally coming on board with the idea that the the resurrection appearances to groups and to individuals is something we can kind of nail down in the way that you say we can. And You you said Mike that well the majority of biblical scholars would say that that's you know uncontroversial.

But says yeah, but they're Christians. It says to me but but wonders if there's obviously a bias going on there that you're you're willing to look at the facts in a certain way. If you've got a kind of Christian preconception and we had a little discussion about well, whether they they really are Christian, you know.

In in what that would obviously depend on our definition of Christian to some extent but but what I'm getting from you Mike is that Most people don't have a kind of particular If you like bias. Isn't necessarily the case that that people are going to be very conservative if you like in their take.

But they still see this as not particularly a controversial claim to make when it comes to biblical scholarship.

Yeah, and I do want to clarify that one statement I made toward the end there. I I do not believe that one needs to be an evangelical to be a Christian. I I do not hold that they have to be an evangelical to be a Christian.

I just wanted to clarify that. Sure in terms of the bias. Would that mean that since the majority of Jewish scholars believe that the Holocaust occurred that We should discount the Holocaust. Well, of course not because the evidence is strong.

So even if a majority of scholars believe that Jesus rose from the dead, I don't think that's the case. But even if that is the case.

It's this kind of thing you get stuck with when you have made your case based upon quote-unquote scholarly consensus. Scholarly consensus changes and it is subject to bias. Just look at the Massive amount of evidence for intelligent design that just smacks you upside the head.

And yet. What is the scholarly consensus. It scholarly consensus is not evidence of anything but the current political popularity Within a certain realm.

That's all it is and that the majority of Christian scholars believe that Jesus rose from the dead and they argue such the issue. Isn't whether they believe because they're biased. We're all biased in different ways.

The issue is are the arguments is the evidence is the methodology? That's being used sound to show that Jesus rose from the dead. Yeah, that's what it really comes down.

So let me respond to that. It's a good point Mike, but you're taking an instant incident the Holocaust that virtually everybody agrees on if you had a An event that only Jews believed for example suppose suppose it's not true.

But suppose that only Jews believe that Elijah was taken up into heaven by a chariot and that he that that he never died. And the only people who believe this were Jews. Wouldn't you wonder if the historical evidence was very good if the only people who believe this were Jews.

Yeah, yeah good point. I think the Holocaust example was not a good one and. The issue here should be to challenge Bart's naturalistic methodology. Because that's where the bias is. But you see you can't really do that within the Academy very well because if you challenge naturalism well, you're gonna look like you're you're one of those crazed Christians and you're not you're not one of those people talks about the Lordship of Christ even over epistemology and things like that and that's where the problem could have to do that.

Well, that's what you have on the resurrection. The only people I know but it doesn't. My point is that if there's no bias involved. Why is it that only Christians believe it?

Well, I guess it's a it's a game changer in terms of one's worldview. If you believe in the resurrection, the next step is you should be a Christian. And yeah.

I mean in a sense a change that you do have stories of people who didn't believe in the resurrection. Came to believe in the resurrection. Well, the natural next step was they became a Christian. It's not just a it's a correlation, but it makes a lot of sense as far as it being a correlation.

It goes the other direction to a lot of people who were Christian. Stop believing in it because they don't see the historical evidence for it. Well in a sense, that's that's your story.

You know that that you'd in a sense you'd stopped believing in God. That obviously discounted a miraculous event being you know, you you are happy up to now. Did you catch that?

Justin's a presupposition list. Well, he's not. But he should be and he thinks that way because he just saw the priest up. The role of presuppositions in Bart Ehrman's thinking. And and really Justin and I'm gonna suggest he listen the pro.

I don't know if he does or doesn't he but he may be too busy, too, but. That's what a presupposition list is saying. You just recognize the naturalistic presuppositions in the argument that Bart is Presenting and you really have to wonder if Bart can in any fair way analyze evidence for the supernatural given his philosophical presuppositions.

And that's.

Part and parcel the presuppositional approach that point. Well a point at least. For this to be a historical back to the resurrection. My point is that it's not.

It's not unconnected to one's bias and you shouldn't pretend that the historical evidence can be looked at without a bias. And I never have well, so mounting a historical case.

Isn't your bias just as much a bias. The problem is you don't believe in God and therefore the resurrection will never be a.

Satisfactory. Yes, yes, yes, and yet he will sit here and to the end of the program saying Miracles are not allowed in history. Why. Because my bias Exists because my definition of history is a naturalistic one and there's no place for God in it.

It can't be there. So God could not have done anything in history if he exists. He's excluded from history and any evidence to bring up a lot of magnets and missed as a result. That's wonderful epistemological.

Sorry, my bias is just as much Mike the question has to do whether his history can be done on purely Historiographic grounds without your ass and the answer is absolutely not and I and so then the question is if that's the case Can miracle be a category that can be applied in historiographic research?

Well, if you can't do miracle because of bias then you can't do anything because there's always bias involved in any investigation.

Yes.

But the but miracles a special category because unlike the Holocaust it's it's invoking Something outside of our natural experience to explain what happened in the past.

Okay, so the real issue then isn't bias. It's because it's invoking. Invoking something outside of our experience.

It's well, that's the problem outside of Bart's experience. I mean Bart is not that much older than I am and therefore His range of experiences do not exhaust the human experience. I'm with miracle.

I've moved from talking about bias to talking about the problem of miracle that miracle cannot be. Something that is encapsulated within historiographic method. We simply don't have Historiographic tools to deal with miracle, even if miracles do have.

This is what I thought before I was an egg.

Historiographic tools. Okay, if all he's saying here is that the historian who's only dealing with facts and and and and will not address Reasons why things took place in the past, okay fine. But you see the whole issue of the Resurrection goes beyond that the whole issue of the Resurrection.

You know, you know even Bart recognizes that to say something like yeah Jesus rose from the dead don't have the foggiest idea why. But hey, you know. But that's not what he's saying and Everybody knows that's not what he's saying.

And he knows that's not what he's saying, too.

I'll stick by the way when I was a Christian I thought that you cannot apply historiographic methods in order to explain that a miracle happened. I.

Think what we do is we we look at the evidence and we let try to let the facts speak for themselves. In a manner that's worldview independent. In other words, we don't presuppose God's existence. We don't a priori exclude it.

We try to adopt it.

Which is absolutely positively Impossible can't be done. It's not Christian. And that's the big problem. Right here it right there you have Christians Abandoning the Lordship of Christ in the field of epistemology And saying well, but but but this is the only way we can fit into the Academy.

There you go. And the results are. Well, it's more probable That the you know, the evidence points to the greater possibility of the existence of a God and you have all this Sub-biblical apologetics because of these foundational.

Starting issues. It just reminds me slightly of an argument. We've had on here in a different field, which is the intelligent design argument and and that there are met there are certain scientists who are Christians who believe that the origin of life can only be explained by divine means.

But there are others who say that's not allowed in science. So your conclusion is invalid because you can't draw a divine conclusion in a scientific sphere. You're saying the similar thing for history here.

You can't draw a divine conclusion in a historical setting bar. But but I suppose the question is why is that out of bounds? Well, let me ask this. Let me ask this.

Suppose we bracket the resurrection and just ask about miracle in general. So Mike you and I are both located in the United States where most historians research historians teach at major research universities.

By the way there right there if you want to know is Bart Ehrman's ultimate authority. What people say who teach at major research universities like him?

There is your ultimate authority. And so can you think of any incidents? Incident instance in which secular or Christian historians teaching at major research universities in the United States agree on any Event in the past that they would label a miracle.

No, I can't. Right. And it doesn't matter whether they're Christian or non-christian. They don't invoke miracle because how we can't. Bart and there you go.

You might as well quote Genesis 1 1 because for Bart Ehrman, that's it. That's it. Now the fact that a hundred years ago. That would have been different and hundred years from now It might be different and the fact that these.

Consensus's.

Consensi. Will change. It's irrelevant. Right now that's the way it is. That's the ultimate authority.

How would that be because you it you would have to have pretty much a consensus of people who would acknowledge that God exists? And we don't have that. So I think you have some folks who would say well, this is a really interesting thing.

It's an anomaly perhaps. We don't know the cause but whoa can't think of a naturalistic explanation. It'd be a matter of faith.

It's not a matter of history and that's.

View.

No, you have to have faith for it to be a miracle. And so the resurrection is not.

Subject to historiographic proof. Why do you have to have faith for it to be a miracle if it existed in if it took place? In the past it took place in the past before I was born or had faith in it or didn't have faith in it.

What it's it's a matter of faith. It's not a matter of history.

So let's suppose let's just assume just for a moment here. That there was no doubt whatsoever Jesus rose from the dead. Would you acknowledge that. That's a miracle. I.

Think that would be the question I would ask you. I don't know what you mean by rose. From that it you mean raised from the dead and never died again.

Yeah, let's say that Jesus is certainly dead and then he's raised bodily from the dead and that he ascended to heaven. Well forget that part. We'll just say he's still alive today. Yes. He's still alive today.

He was risen from the dead right and and you could show that he had been. I mean Let's suppose you have a decapitated person. Uh-huh. And then you see them come back to life and they're walking again.

Is that a miracle?

What do you mean by miracle?

Divine act what does is mean?

Is it. I don't know what it is. It's weird. Is it beyond weird? It's natural. Is it a supernatural cause. Let's do you see why presuppositional ism is.

Required of us. I remember Greg Bonson many many years ago and one of those horribly recorded tapes. Talking about a guy I think it was USC or UCLA. I think it's UCLA. Atheist looks at the evidence says yeah, it looks like Jesus rose from the dead.

Weird things happen because you see he takes.

That fact.

Fits it into his worldview and Voila weird things happen. And now you just heard Bart Ehrman. That's pretty weird pretty weird. But doesn't really mean anything because if you don't have the foundations in your worldview for things to have meaning.

It's just a really weird thing. Put it that way. I don't know what it is.

It's it's weird. I mean, of course it never happens. But I mean, I've never seen it to connect to Decapitated person but you're asking if I saw a decapitated person have his head reattached and and he lived then for another two Thousand years.

What would I call that? Mm-hmm. I would call it very very strange.

Let's put it this way if the historical evidence is good enough to show that Jesus rose from the dead. We'll just not call it a miracle. We'll just say well, we don't know how he was raised. We don't know the nature of this.

Body in which he was in but all you're showing is that people claim they saw him alive afterwards.

I think the evidence is there to show that not only did they Claim it they actually believed it and the best explanation for that is that he actually rose from the dead. Well now you want to leave the cause of the resurrection as a question mark.

I'm fine with that.

No, you've moved from history to faith.

So you can show his story. You've moved from the facts of history to an explanation of what history is telling us. That is not based upon naturalistic materialism. That's what you have moved to which which part just his worldview isn't big enough to embrace that.

That people claim they saw him alive afterward. You can draw the conclusion that they probably believed it. But if you yourself agree that Jesus was raised from the dead. You're saying that is an act of God in history and you've already agreed that historians don't invoke God when they come up with their.

Explanations did he are I did he agree to that? I guess in a way he may have because he agreed that nobody in the United States in research universities has referred to miracle.

But.

So what you're doing is not history anymore its faith.

No, I think you misunderstand a little what I'm saying. There we look for inferences to the best explanation in history. Now if I can Conclude that I look at the evidence say I know some people in some of Jesus friends and at least one of his foes Had a sincere belief that they that Jesus had been raised and had appeared to them.

And now I go through and I weigh different hypotheses such as resurrection hallucinations metaphor apparent death theory theft all this kind of stuff and When I apply the criteria for the best explanation and the resurrection hypothesis wins by a significant margin.

I'm I am justified. As a historian I'm warranted in concluding that the resurrection hypothesis is most what. Why. Now, you know.

I was a little surprised and it may just have been to the form of the program. When you're in the studio. Bart was in the studio. I've been the studio a number of times. You can see Justin and you can you can sort of tell when He's gonna be interrupting, you know.

He leans into the microphone and you know. Your time's running out and and Bart's been on unbelievable before so he has an idea about how long it goes stuff like that. Maybe that's why but Ermin presented in a debate I believe with William Lane Craig on this subject some interesting Hypotheses some hypothetical Possibilities for why the historical data would appear the way that it does and I think that would have helped his case a lot here because I think it would have Substantially broadened the field for his his discussion.

I'm not sure why he didn't do it. Like is it is probably just time. I don't know.

But.

We discussed that when we reviewed that debate quite some time ago on the dividing line, but it did add an interesting.

Dimension to it. Why is it that. Why is it that historians unlike you do not invoke divine causality?

Maybe they don't believe in divine You and would say I don't believe God exists. No. No, no.

What about his. We just agreed that every historian and every research university in North America would refuse to invoke? Miracle or views to talk about divine causality and yet you're saying that in this one instance, we're going to make an exception.

Actually, I and if and if your hopes if you've agreed his ultimate authority, you're pretty stuck there. Should never agree to it should challenge it from the start but again.

That makes you look like you're not in the inside. That just a moment ago that we could say Jesus was raised and Leave a question mark pertaining to the cause of his resurrection, but historians do this on a regular basis.

Really?

Yeah, give it give me another instance when they do that.

When they talk about the death of Karlaman We don't know whether Charlemagne had him killed or whether he died of natural causes in the 8th century. How about the death of Scipio Africanus the famous general who defeated and historians say it was a miracle.

No, I'm saying we leave the cause of how they died or of a certain event a question.

I think you would agree that everybody dies. So there's no there's nothing particular weird about that.

To the cause, right. I See that we look and look what I'm doing here, too. Let's suppose all right. I I'm fine with leaving a question mark in the practice of history that God raised Jesus from the dead.

And that's why I think we would not admit. It's not that he's the best candidate. Wouldn't you. It's exactly that's my point.

It's a matter of faith. It's not a matter of history now. That's an important section of this this interaction. So important I'm gonna I'm gonna back it up here. I want you to hear this again because Even Bart's right at this point.

Bart's, right? Because what Mike's saying is that we can leave it if we can leave a question mark. We don't we don't have to deal with the you know. We can fit in with the research universities and say well.

We don't know why. No, that's not that's not Christian proclamation. And I don't think it's Christian historiography. It is a capitulation. And so listen to this again, this is I think this is nothing particular weird about that.

To the cause, right. See that we look and look what I'm doing here, too. Let's suppose all right. I I'm fine with leaving a question mark in the practice of history that God raised Jesus from the dead and that's why I think We would not admit.

It's not that he's the best candidate. Wouldn't you. It's exactly that's my point. It's a matter of faith.

It's not a matter of history.

Okay, so what I think the thing you're struggling with is the theological implications of a historical conclusion.

This is not a historical conclusion. What you don't understand is that what you're doing theology. You're not doing history.

There's isn't all of this real simple, you know. On one side Bart Ehrman is a naturalistic materialist and because his naturalistic materialistic world has not the worldview has not been challenged then.

The foundations are are completely wrong here now. I would say Mike Lacona is not consistent here either, but it's still got a different foundation but they're up here and there's Passing swinging around and passing each other in the night and zoom zoom in there this this could go on forever it goes on for one minute more, but it could go on forever and Never get anything done because the foundations have not been addressed and can't be addressed.

When you're making your argument from the consensus of.

Scholarship, no historians. There's no historical implications that if no.

There's no historian in the country that would agree that the resurrection of Jesus is historically demonstrable. The only people who would say that are evangelical Christians who happen to have the faith that Jesus was raised from the dead.