Theology Precedes and Determines Apologetics, Part II

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. It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

Theology Matters in Apologetics

And welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon we continue with the program we started on Tuesday. I'm not sure that we're gonna get through it all of it today. But you know, we'll go ahead and take phone calls if there are some real pressing ones coming in but On Tuesday, we began looking at the subject of apologetic methodology and the fact that Theology matters.

In fact, theology is completely determinative if you seek to be consistent and Obviously, this is a lesson. I learned I know as a young man probably Mmm still as a 19 year old young man right before turning 20, I would guess I Well, normally 19 does come.

As I was good with math. Thanks rich appreciate that no one else would have got that but you thank you very very much really appreciate that assistance. Anyways, I Remember The first time a someone opposing the Christian faith Forced me to recognize an inconsistency on my own part.

I was a young man. I was a Mormon missionary and interestingly enough it had to do with the nature of faith and That's rather You know was sort of gave a picture of what was to come. In a recognition of where I was inconsistent regarding what is I now know today is to be reformed theology but Those who oppose the faith tend to force us to be consistent on these subjects.

They identify our inconsistencies and so if we are going to give a reason for the hope that is within us then I Suggest to you that we need to be consistent. We need to be consistent between our theology and our apologetic method our theology must come first and that must determine the apologetic methodology and we are illustrating this Through the process of listening to a debate that took place fairly recently at Midwest Baptist Theological Seminary Between a future opponent of mine in debate.

Dr. Bart Ehrman University, North Carolina Chapel Hill author of such books. Dealing with well, you know the orthodox corruption of scripture Misquoting Jesus and the most recent one on the popular level God's problem.

Dr. Ehrman is considered one of the leading New Testament textual scholars in the United States and then Mike Lycona was representing the Christian faith defending the resurrection and we saw last time that there is a fundamental difference in the approach Adopted by those who emphasize what I would allege.

They would not call this but what I would allege to be a man-centered theology focused upon the concept of the autonomous will of man primarily more philosophical than biblical theology over against reformed theology, which I would identify as theocentric and Shall we say bibliocentric?

One that I believe has a much closer connection to the biblical text and We started listening to that debate. And so I'm going to continue with that. We are listening to Bart Ehrman's response to Mike Lycona and I'll be interacting with some of his statements and then we'll be listening to Mike Lycona going back and forth Between the two so let's continue.

Apparitions, Resurrection Claims, and Historical Probability

With that here on the program, right? And it isn't just Apollonius who is a candidate for resurrection from the dead. What about Romulus? What about Heracles? What about Cleomedes? What about all the other people from the Greco-Roman world who were allegedly seen by their followers after their death?

Are they all people who had been raised from the dead? Now I I just I just mentioned in passing here again is where we demonstrate that. Again, if you haven't heard the preceding program, you could be a little bit lost here.

You might be able to plug in eventually, but I would suggest you listen to to the preceding program first but if you allow if you do not challenge the concept of an atheistic history if You separate your argument from the authority of the underlying text if you don't have the concept of Prophecy if you don't have the whole Spectrum of things coming together them.

This is the kind of response you're going to get and that is well. Look, if it's if all you're saying is that there are people who thought Jesus had risen from the dead. They thought they had seen him.

Well, then you're gonna have to believe a lot of people ended up rising from the dead now. I already pointed out that one of the main problems here that he really wasn't challenged on was these are. These aren't just Individuals who in the middle of the night wake up and they see a glowing apparition of Jesus.

That's not the nature of the of the the sightings of Jesus after the resurrection. Not only that but there are groups. There are as many as 500 at one time who see Jesus and interact with Jesus and Some people who were even opposed to his message as in the Apostle Paul and so that's a little bit of a different context then.

Then Bart Ehrman is allowing for if Mike wants to base his argument Solely on this one fact that he says is not based on biblical inerrancy. Which by the way, I didn't I didn't mention because I didn't think he did hold a biblical inerrancy.

If he wants to hold this not on the basis of biblical I would I just I noticed it's the same thing I did. Can you imagine the looks in that room when that happened because you know to teach in the Southern Baptist Seminary you have to sign the Baptist faith message and and he will I think in the very last question.

Affirm that he believes in inerrancy. But I don't think that he actually gets to it until the very last question of the debate. So you can just see and I don't know if Ehrman did that on purpose. If he's aware of the situation among Southern Baptists to what you know, the the Level of hand grenade he just tossed into the audience at that point.

I'm I really don't know if he's if he's aware of course. But on this one idea that people later said they saw him alive afterwards. Then what about these other people? Secondly, what about modern people who are seen after their death?

It turns out there's an entire literature of studies done by experts Psychologists social historians Parapsychologists about people who have visions of loved ones after their death. Why hasn't Mike investigated this information as.

It turns out it's a very common phenomenon. For people to claim to have seen somebody that they were close to after their death. These occurrences are well documented. Sometimes the person comes to a person Through a wall or through a door and disappears as suddenly these people are not seen to be ghosts.

They're seen to be real physical people who could be touched and held and experienced. Sometimes these people are seen by multiple people at the same time. Maybe some of you even have had the experience of a loved one whom you were sure that you had some experience of.

After their death. Does that mean that they were raised from the dead? Jesus disciples claimed they saw him alive afterwards. So have many thousands of people not just in American culture, but cross-culturally throughout the world.

This is extremely well documented. Well, we're all those people raised from the dead. If this is the only piece of evidence you have for a resurrection and other people meet the same criterion. We have appearances of other religious figures that are well documented in the modern world in 1968 to 69 in Zaytun Egypt at the Coptic Church.

Where both Muslims and Christians were gathered? The Mother Mary appeared. Virgin Mary the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. She appeared over a number of months between 1968 and 1969. Believers and unbelievers claimed that they saw her.

The total was over 10 ,000 people and I imagine you've got larger numbers for lords and Fatima and Our Lady of Guadalupe and all the rest is that kind of stuff, too. I as I was listening to this as I was writing I remember thinking and isn't it fascinating that the people who have these alleged visions.

Frequently there is no communication. Frequently the person allegedly seen is is just that a vision there is no communication. There's no speech. There certainly isn't anything like walking along a seashore or eating fish or doing any of these other things.

That are a part of the resurrection in regards to Christ and what's more and this is what's very interesting as well. Is that those who actually do claim? That Mary speaks. Then they start writing down what Mary said and What happens when that happens all of a sudden you get all sorts of contradictory stories as to what Mary was?

Allegedly stating. Which again is not what you get when you look at what the Apostles stated? So a number of contradictions other differences, but there's no question about you know, how many times do you hear people using all the All the Marian sightings as evidence of the truthfulness of Rome's claims about Mary who claimed that they saw her.

Now as a historian am I going to say that the Virgin Mary actually appeared to these 10 ,000 people? Well, if I follow Mike's criterion, I think I have to say that. Because we have 10 ,000 eyewitness accounts of people who claim they saw the Virgin Mary.

Do I personally think she appeared to them. No. But as a historian, can I prove it? No. Here's what I think happened with the historical Jesus now listen in here. Jesus had an avid following among his disciples who were convinced that he was somebody special.

Jesus proclaimed that God was going to intervene in history and Overthrow the forces of evil and bring in a good kingdom on earth. Jesus believed that there were evil forces in the world Demons and sickness and sin and death that this world was controlled by the forces of evil.

But that God wasn't going to allow it to go on forever. That God was going to soon intervene and overthrow the forces of evil to bring in a good kingdom on earth. This kingdom was going to happen very soon.

According to Jesus in his first recorded words mark chapter 1 verse 15 Jesus said the time has been fulfilled. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the good news. This is what scholars call an apocalyptic image.

An Apocalyptic image meaning an image of the end time that is soon to come. The time has been fulfilled says Jesus. In other words There's a certain amount of time allotted for life in this age this evil age run by the forces of evil.

It's almost over though. Soon God is going to intervene and overthrow those forces of evil. The kingdom of God is at hand says Jesus. Now I just stopped just in passing to note how many times in teaching through the synoptic Gospels I have had to address the misapprehensions of the disciples in light of the traditions that were theirs.

Concerning the nature of the Messiah and how many times Jesus corrected them now realize again once you you Deconstruct the Gospels themselves then all airmen has to say as well. Of course, that is their later understanding being projected back upon Jesus see.

But taking the text for what the text say. It was clear From Jesus own teaching that the nature of his kingdom was quite different than that which was expected By the disciples and by the Jews themselves that period of time as he says elsewhere to his disciples.

Truly I tell you some of you standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come in power. The disciples would see the kingdom of God come. God was going to intervene. He was going to vindicate his righteous ones and who was more righteous than Jesus.

Jesus went to Jerusalem the last week of his life entered into the temple overturned tables in the temple. Upset the ruling authorities who decided to have him arrested and taken out of the way they subjected him to crucifixion a Form of death that was reserved for the lowest of the low his disciples had hoped that he would be the one who would restore the kingdom to Israel and Then he was killed.

They loved him. What are they to think. God was soon going to intervene on behalf of his righteous people. He would vindicate his righteous ones. The disciples of Jesus came to believe that God did vindicate his righteous one Jesus.

Just as so many thousands of people have since his disciples after Jesus death Had visions of him. They experienced him as still in their lives. Now let me just stop for just a moment you know this sounds I understand, you know a lot of people repeat the exact same kind of argumentation and They say see, you know, they just they these visions were based upon the enduring nature of Jesus's teachings and and All the rest this kind of stuff and you just stop you go.

No, wait a minute. Wait, wait a minute. You're you Again as as Muslims do you're you're cherry-picking the text you're you're choosing those elements of the text that will fit into in this case your Naturalistic worldview and then you are throwing out anything else that conflicts with your particular theory.

Jesus had told the disciples this was coming. Well, we just have to dismiss that that must be a later edition or whatever else. You want to do with that? Jesus had told them in fact in one Texas said they were withheld from understanding they were kept from understanding Jesus's repeated proclamation to them that he was going to Jerusalem.

He was going to be betrayed. He was going to Be crucified he was he was going to rise again the third day. So this is there the disciples are not expecting The kind of kingdom that Jesus is establishing.

So basically we're being told here is though they had one expectation somehow. Very quickly not not decades and decades down the road now. He may want to do that. He may want to push this as far down as possible.

So you've got all sorts of time for reflection and development and evolution all the rest of stuff. But the idea is that very quickly the disciples are Proclaiming that Jesus has risen from the dead during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.

Ahriman is has already said I didn't play his portion. But he's already said none of these Gospels are written by witnesses. None of these Gospels saw the ministry of Jesus. All of Jesus's followers were illiterate.

How exactly he knows that I'm really not certain. But there are certain things that certain scholars just state with such. You know, they do it so often it becomes a fact to them all of Jesus's followers were illiterate.

Therefore they couldn't have written these things. These are written by later generations. Blah blah blah blah. But you have these individuals who have one expectation very very quickly during the lifetime of eyewitnesses proclaiming a message that could be so easily falsified and they do so in Language that makes it very very plain that they're not talking about just seeing visions of a disembodied ghost or anything else.

They are talking about a resurrection from the dead and that resurrection from the dead is not the common Jewish Understanding resurrection at the end times look at Mary and Martha. They understand that there's a resurrection, but the idea of it happening anyone raising before the general resurrection makes no sense to them at all.

And so they come up with an a conclusion that is totally against their expectations. Is that what we are seriously? Supposed to believe is actually going on here. Well, once you approach the text from a naturalistic perspective, it's all you've got.

That's what you have to say that's where you have to go and that's what Bart Ehrman has they remembered his words. But they also had some kind of experience of him a real tangible experience of him where they could feel him and touch him.

And talk to him. Just as widows today Sometimes experience their dead husbands. No not just as widows today a Widow today can experience her dead husband while her children around her and they don't experience it you don't have situations where the Apostles are sitting around and Four out of the eleven see Jesus and the others going boy.

I wish I could. That's not the nature of these encounters with Jesus. That's just not the case and you say well, of course they just made that up to you know. To start a religious and like that. Yeah, they made it up so they could die.

So they could live their lives running from place to place being persecuted and everything else. I again the it really becomes an act of desperation to get around the nature of the evidence that's being discussed here or as Children today experience their dead parents.

They had experiences of Jesus. Experiences that happened multiple times throughout history and still till down to today. On the basis of their experiences. They believe that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

What would be more natural. They saw him they talked to him. This was not their expectation. However, I it is amazing to hear. Well, what would be more natural? This would not fit with their expectations.

He's not taking that into consideration at all. Just as people do today Historians Cannot prove that Jesus was raised from the dead and I should point out that I think Mike is being a little bit Slippery when he says that it's possible to say that Jesus was raised from the dead, but that maybe God didn't do it.

Well, who else did it? If you're not going to say God raised from the Jesus from the dead then as a historian I want you to tell me who did raise Jesus from the dead. As we said in the last program. You got it.

You got a grant that point. The instant that Michael Icona said well, we can leave that question. We don't have to go the logical theological conclusion from that point. I was just as I was writing that they heard again like oh.

No, they didn't say that did he. I believe that's what they call a spoon feed. I was a spoon feed that was a that's you know, hey slam this one home. Clearly if Jesus is raised from the dead He is raised by divine power and what you do is you challenge the idea and this is where again?

Theology matters and approach matters. This is where Mike doesn't challenge him and that is his concept of atheistic history. History that does not allow for God to be active within it. That's where the problem exists and that's what needs to be challenged.

And if you're going to say God did it then you're making a theological statement. Not a historical statement. There's there's a dichotomy right there. No, you're making a Historical statement that allows the existence of God you are not simply presupposing Atheistic history that's where the challenge has to be made.

It's a statement about God and God's activities. It's a statement about a miracle. The least likely occurrence. Which is more likely that the followers of Jesus who loved him had visionary experiences of him after his death visionary experiences that are documented thousands of times or That God raised him from the dead a unique miracle that would have happened only once well not notice.

Again, completely ignoring the nature of the visions of Jesus and the whole nine yards. This is the essence of the argument from his perspective and that is you want to make this a naturalistic argument.

You've already separated God out from history and until you challenge that there's no way to challenge this argument. But once you've challenged that presupposition, then the argument itself is not overly compelling.

Which is more historically probable. If you're a historian you can only deal with Probabilities. You can only deal with what most probably happen not with what least probably happen. If you're a Christian, you are welcome to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead.

But that is a theological belief that you have about something that God did it is not based on historical proof. Because the historical proof cannot be adduced. Thank you. So if you're a Christian Just admit you believe in mythology.

Don't say it's actually true. He knows the nature of the Christian claim. He knows the Christian claim is That of course this happened in time and history. But what he's trying to do is to force you to realize that all you have is a mythological belief.

It is not an actual Historical belief at all. All right. Let's let's go to the response then offered and you're probably have to crank this up just a little bit.

Historical Bedrock, Empty Tomb, and the Role of Presuppositions

By Michael Aikono. Again, I said tonight we would take a Journey down history highway and stop at four checkpoints. So I'd like again to review revisit those four checkpoints. In light of what professor Ehrman has just said in terms of the first checkpoint the definition of history.

Nothing further was said here horizons. Nothing further at the second on to the third. He did say again at the very end. He said that historians can only deal with what most probably occurred and I agree with that.

So I but I would say that that is just half true. Because the point that he's trying to make. Well, it does. It's the wrong half. It doesn't coincide with. Let me put it this way. I agree with him that historians must choose the most probable explanation but where we disagree is that miracles must be the least probable explanation.

Now, that's sort of a.

Challenge to the Presuppositional nature of an atheistic history that precludes there being any evidence of God. Actually being active in history sort of it could be much more clearly stated if you if you step back and approach this presuppositionally.

Which is difficult to do given the nature of the apologetic methodology, but that's in essence what's being said.

I agree that they must be least probable by natural causes. But no one ever claimed that Jesus rose by natural causes. The claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Okay. We just said that God raised Jesus in the dead. But before we said that we could leave that part off and see that's that's where the inconsistency comes in. You need to have a consistent Christian epistemology that recognizes that in Jesus Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

You can't step off that foundation and pretend that you have neutral ground with the rebel against God. Because that's what he is is a rebel against God and there is no neutral ground. Every fact that is a fact is the fact that it is because God designed it that way and if God exists and wanted to.

Jesus there's no reason why this shouldn't be the most probable explanation. The difficulty for historians is we can't know whether God wanted to raise Jesus. And so we have to leave this uh in terms of Prior probability to be settled by which hypothesis fulfills the criteria best of explanatory scope power Etc.

This is how we determine probability and not according to these theological speculations. That bart has to report into his uh history.

Now, isn't that odd to hear the christian saying that the christian is right at one point. These are theological presuppositions on ehrman's part. That's right. That's why I engage in presuppositional apologetics because his worldview is absolutely theological.

Just because it denies god can do anything doesn't change the fact that he's making theological claims in the process. But when you want to avoid yourself being a presuppositionalist and you're pointing out the other guy's presuppositions um, it's fair game to point out yours.

And to put them on the table and to then have to deal with the reality that Neither one of you are actually standing on neutral ground. And so what is the point of contact. Point of contact is they're all made in the image of god, etc Etc.

We talked about that last time but it is it is odd to uh to hear the christian saying Don't bring in theological presuppositions to this. Um because the the we're talking about a Theological historical event and as long as you don't challenge the separation of those two.

You're not going to get anywhere prior to assessing any of the evidence. When we do look at the explanatory scope power, etc. We do find that the resurrection is the most probable explanation. If we look at it purely according to how well it fulfills that Those criteria rather than the theological and philosophical Ideas that go along with it.

Now at our fourth checkpoint, we looked at applying method and we talked about the historical bedrock. Those three facts and bart says that these are not rot solid facts. These are things that he admitted to in his opening statement.

Um, i'm sorry in his writings. He admits that jesus death by crucifixion is one of the most certain facts of history. He admits that it is a historical fact that some of jesus followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead and that paul um, he says Paul, there is no doubt that paul believed that he saw jesus real but glorified body raised from the dead.

So it's this transformed physicality of the body that is raised from the dead. So he believes with the on these three facts right here. And counts them as facts. He says well, you can't have or um, just because you don't have just because you have a crucifixion.

These were common. It doesn't mean a resurrection. I never said it did but you can't have a resurrection without a death now, can you? And so that's why I said jesus death by crucifixion. Yeah, that makes sense.

In terms of the appearances to the disciples and the appearance to paul. The reason I distinguish them is because not only was it his friends who believe that he rose from the dead. But also a sworn enemy someone who would be the equivalent of a modern osama bin laden.

Who uh, I mean imagine osama bin laden. He comes out of the Appears before his group someday and you hear all these gunshots and yelling and he comes out he says brothers I'm here to tell you I was in a cave the other day.

And I was praying with my colleagues and a loud Voice bellowed throughout the cave and a bright light came in the cave and said osama osama. Why are you persecuting me? He said well, who are you lord?

And he said I am jesus whom you are persecuting and so forth. And i'm here to tell you today muslim brothers and sisters that jesus is lord and we need to follow him. And they pelt him with stones. That's the big difference between the disciples believing and paul believing professor erman makes a issue out of the parallels but I don't think that these are very.

Effective. Oh, okay. Now, for example, he mentions apollonius of tiana. All right now now listen carefully because again. Here's where the approach is going to differ. My approach. Uh would not give up the ground.

Of the sources of the proclamation of the resurrection. In other words, I am I cannot abandon the idea that god has spoken with clarity in scripture and that therefore the nature of this evidence differs fundamentally from atheistic history.

Um. And now listen to the critique that I would agree with but I think i'm more consistent In agreeing with this. I would agree in what he says about apollonius tiana and so on so forth. Uh, but. Is he consistent because erman's going to? focus on this.

Um, what we need to do is we need to compare the sources like are there early sources multiple sources? Eye witness sources embarrassing sources. Are there any plausible naturalistic explanations? And when we look at apollonius of tiana versus jesus.

We say that apollonius fails in every single one of these categories whereas jesus passes. The earliest account that we have 125 years after the death of apollonius. Um, we don't have multiple sources.

We only have the one source. Yes, there were others but we don't have them and we could add more sources about jesus if we're going to go that way. Eyewitnesses, we don't have that. With apollonius embarrassing.

No because philostratus's only biographer was very pro apollonius. In fact, there are reasons to suspect that this was perhaps propaganda meant to Answer the christian view so there are plausible naturalistic explanations.

But the thing with jesus resurrection Passes in every one of these categories regarding romulus.

So basically he. Very very quickly a little bit too quickly, I think uh throws out various assertions regarding the sources. The dating of the sources the reliability of the sources. Which again sounds very much.

Like what bart ehrman did about the gospels? Now if you had defended the gospels against bart ehrman's allegations. And I I realize i've i've talked to some of the folks that engage these topics. And on that side of the of the divide and basically what they say is well look, you know I want to avoid getting into having to defend the text on that level.

I don't get anywhere that way. Uh, we get off the topic and so i'm just not going to do it. Well, I don't know if you can get away with not doing it. Uh, because this ends up being the kind of response yet.

And we'll see when when ehrman responds in a few minutes. He mentioned that well, we're not even certain of his death.

That's not mentioned in the historical records. So that's why death is important. We do at least have an apparition of the dead. And um, this is something that professor ehrman mentioned and he said well mike Uh just hasn't studied the literature on this and I have in fact, I noticed the book Resurrecting jesus by dale allison.

I wrote the review for a review of biblical literature on that book and in fact hosted a panel discussion At aar and eps this past fall where professor allison gave a paper On his studies about apparitions from the dead and it was responded by gary alvermas william lane craig and stephen davis.

I think Apparitions of the dead actually occur. I have no problems with that. I have a friend in virginia beach named pat ferguson who's told me of an amazing Corroborated account of an apparition of the dead just the other day I was talking to my friend bill johnson down in atlanta, georgia Who had an apparition of the dead just last week and he's had him before and some of these are corroborated so um.

Okay I'm Left going. The exact purpose of Raising that right now uh seems to be sort of countermanded by the argumentation that Ehrman has been presenting. Um I I'm, i'd be interested in knowing something more about these.

Uh. These alleged apparitions, but i'm not really certain of the role it plays right now.

I do believe in these but in no case do these people go back and check the person's tomb. They don't think that it's a bodily resurrected of a transformed corpse so.

Now that's one of the major differences. No question about it is the empty tomb and the the assertions in regards to the physicality Of the resurrection the continuity of connection Between the body that died and the body that has been raised up that you see in matt in first corinthians 15, etc, etc.

Uh, those are all valid things to be emphasizing at that point.

I do believe that sometimes you have these apparitions of the dead. I don't have problems with that. In terms of the virgin mary in 1968 69. I haven't really looked into this. I must confess. So I can't really comment on this.

If there were 10 000 or plus eyewitnesses to this I would just say that if I were to look in it, I would have to weigh the hypotheses. I'm, not catholic. So my bias to begin with would be to say that these there must be a naturalistic explanation.

But as a historian, I would have to be open to this. I would have to weigh hypotheses and be open to a phenomena going on. Could I prove that it's the virgin mary? No, could I prove that this was uh, perhaps a supernatural event?

Well, maybe maybe i'd have to be open to that as a historian if there were no plausible naturalistic explanations. And if this happened in a context that was charged with religious significance, which i'd be happy to unpack if professor ermin would like me to.

Regarding the weighing of hypotheses he brought up the wishful thinking hypothesis and he stated what he thought happened. But he didn't defend it. And it's easy to just state I could say jesus rose from the dead, but unless I give evidence for it It falls on deaf ears.

So i'm still waiting to hear professor ermin's explanation for that. Again, it lacks explanatory scope power and may possess an ad hoc component. Regarding the uh, he says if god didn't do it with the resurrection.

Who did. Well as historians as I mentioned in my first rebuttal. We may have to leave that as a question mark but that doesn't justify us saying that jesus didn't rise from the dead just because we. We can't stomach the possibility that maybe but god did it um I think that's doing history backward and we have to divorce ourself of our theological and philosophical Presuppositions for the most part in terms of our beliefs about god when we are doing a historical investigation.

There you go. There's the fundamental difference between us. You have to divorce yourself from your theological and philosophical presuppositions and I say you can't. And I say the conflict here is on that level.

And if you do not recognize that and challenge that you've got your particular personal opinion your particular. Well, i'm going to read history this way. I'm going to accept these facts this way and i've got my probabilities versus the other guys probabilities and all you're left with is Probabilities.

You're not left with the apostolic preaching of the resurrection of christ. This takes us back to the beginning the difference between an apologetic methodology. It says the the preponderance of the evidence points the greater probability of the existence of a god.

Versus without the christian god. You can't even explain The terms probability or existence or anything else? Um totally different approaches totally different levels of proclamation and while we you know Again can be thankful for anybody who tries to stand up and speak for christ.

The question always is Who is being consistent with the apostolic example and with the testimony of scripture itself? Let me just give a real quick analogy.

Let's say that during his next Rebuttal bark drops dead. I hope that doesn't happen. We'll say he does. And a couple physicians come up and work on him and the paramedics come in after an hour. They declare him dead and at that point phil roberts jumps up and says uh bark god did this in order to show you that um.

Your journey from christianity to agnosticism was wrongheaded now in the name of jesus. Get up and walk. And at that moment he opens his eyes and stands up. Well, maybe he would say whoa, whatever happened.

I don't understand what happened there. But it wasn't a miracle because we can't know that. And I would say no, I think it was a miracle. Um, maybe we can't say anything about the god who did that as historians, but we could say that a miracle has happened here.

Um, so in conclusion I I think i'd just say that I think my case that historians can prove that jesus rose from the dead still stands and bart's um. Contentions to the contrary continue to fail under critical scrutiny.