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 at 602 -973 -4602 or toll free across the

United States It's 1 -877 -753 -3341 and now with today's topic.

Here is James White 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 have that 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 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 and 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 than Bart Ehrman is allowing for it

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 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

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 third 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 of 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 there is

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 Ahriman has to say is well of course that is their later

Understanding being projected back upon Jesus see But taking the text for what the texts 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 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 and you go to 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 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 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 text that 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 life time of the eye

Witnesses 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 of 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 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 believed 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 and sir

We don't have to go to the logical theological conclusion from that point. I was just as I was writing that they heard again

I'm 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 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 happened not with what least probably happened

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 by Michael.

Icon Thank you again, I said tonight we would take a Journey down history highway and stop at four checkpoints

So I'd like again to review or 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

It is a fact is the fact that it is because God designed it that way and if God exists and wanted to raise

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 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 part has to report into his history now, isn't that odd to hear the

Christians saying that if the Christian is right at one point the These are theological presuppositions on airmen's part.

That's right That's why I engage in pre -substantial 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 presuppositional list and you're pointing out the other guys presuppositions 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 to hear the Christians saying

Don't bring in theological presuppositions to this 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

But remember these are things that he admitted to in his opening statement

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 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 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 I make sense in terms of the appearances to the disciples and the appearance to Paul the reason

I distinguished 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 I mean imagine

Osama bin Laden he comes out of it Appears before his group someday and you're 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

And now professor Ehrman makes a issue out of the parallels, but I don't think that these are very

Effective. 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 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

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 of Tiana and so on so forth

But is he consistent because Ehrman's going to focus on this

What we need to do is we need to compare the sources like are there early sources multiple sources?

Eyewitness 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 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 is 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 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 realize 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 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

Because this ends up being the kind of response Yeah, 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 This is something that professor

Herman mentioned and he said well Mike 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 Habermas 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 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 Okay, I left going the exact purpose of Raising that right now

Seems to be sort of countermanded by the argumentation that airmen has been presenting

I I'd be interested in knowing something more about these

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 the first Corinthians 15, etc, etc

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? 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 Ehrman 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 Ehrman's explanation for that again It lacks explanatory scope power and may possess an ad hoc component

Regarding the 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 a saying that Jesus didn't rise from the dead just because we

We can't stomach the possibility that maybe but God did it 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 gonna read history this way

I'm gonna 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

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 Mark 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 Bart God did this in order to show you that 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 Maybe we can't say anything about the God who did that as historians, but we could say that a miracle has happened here

So in conclusion, I think I just say that I think my case that historians can prove that Jesus rose from the dead still stands and Bart's Contentions to the contrary continue to fail under critical scrutiny

Now again, there was there was a statement as historians. We can't say anything about the God Well again, they both have the same presupposition that you can separate history and theology you can't from a

Christian perspective Say anything about the theological elements of God's activities in history, and that's where I say no no

No, no, no can't go there with you not following you there And once you get there, I don't think you got a leg to stand on anymore once you make that journey

Don't go there. There's no reason to do so. All right, let's let's listen to what

Bart Ehrman had to say in response Clarifications, and I think Mike would agree these debates get increasingly difficult because what you're tempted to do is to give a point -by -point refutation and Frankly, it's kind of boring to do it that way, but that's

Sort of what you're stuck with so so it goes so Yeah, so let me answer just a few of his points

I Am insisting that he doesn't have three facts. He's got one fact That is that there are people who claim to see

Jesus alive afterwards He says that his first point that Jesus was crucified is necessary because if he wasn't crucified he wouldn't be raised from the dead

That's true. Yes, right. Okay fine, but it's not evidence that he was raised from the dead

Well, we're not talking about just bedrock facts if you want to talk just about bedrock facts You could say things like Jesus came from Galilee It's a bedrock fact

Does have anything to do with the resurrection? No Jesus parents were named

Mary and Joseph bedrock fact. Does that make him do the resurrection? No, I would disagree

Not only as I think you you know sort of missing the point here but the fact if it sounds like he's accepting these as Bedrock facts things that can be known

But where'd he get them He got them from the very same sources that he's earlier said are not reliable that the very things that historians can rely upon So I don't see a consistency here.

I see, you know cherry -picking of the text again Picking and choosing what you will will not accept and I think the fact that those texts place the resurrection

In history in the very same way that they place the birth of Christ in history or Galilee in history

It'll make up some land. No one's ever heard of before are all quite relevant Jesus had brothers one of whom was named

James bedrock fact anything to do with the resurrection No, Jesus was crucified bedrock fact anything to do with resurrection.

No. Yes. He had to die. We all have to die Again missing the point the only reason you're you're raising the issue of the resurrection is to establish that there was truly a death

There's not just a swoon There you know and anybody who's dealt with the Muslims knows you have to establish these things and and the wild links

They'll go to to try to get around the reality of the crucifixion and the actual death of Christ And to argue that the difference with Romulus is that we don't have any account of his death

I think the alternative is to say that Romulus never died and none of us thinks that so So the reality is we do have accounts of Romulus and others being seen or Or disappearing from this earth and it's showing up in heaven after their after their death

It was a very helpful point for him to clarify that his second and third facts that Jesus disciples

Claimed to see him alive afterwards and Paul saw him alive afterwards are two different things because one you have his friends and the other you

Have his enemy absolutely a very good point. It's a great point. So so let's talk about this for a second

Are we going to say that when somebody converts from being an enemy to being a friend that that is evidence of a miracle?

Again I'm amazed at the level of argumentation here. I truly am

I Certainly you would expect from a person who is considered by many to be this the greatest scholar in this area

To at least understand what the argument here is this isn't by itself an argument for a miracle the point is

That the wishful thinking idea the idea that all which he himself has presented that Jesus's disciples had

During his lifetime in his ministry built up all these desires and all these Dreams about the establishment of the kingdom and so on so forth

Then Jesus goes and gets himself crucified by driving the people out of the temple. And so there's wishful thinking they

Experienced Jesus isn't that what he just said actually happened He's he's saying that they that these experiences were not historical that Jesus really didn't rise from the dead

There wasn't an empty tomb But it was because of the deep longings they had the point is

Paul doesn't have those deep longings Paul has the exact opposite of those deep longings the last thing on the

Planet that Paul wants is to run into a risen Jesus Because that means every all of his expectations are out the window and he's got to completely change where he's coming from and so That's that that's the only point that's being made is it's not just the wishful thinking of friends

But here you have a sworn enemy who becomes converted and believes that Jesus rose from the dead and there has to be some kind of Compelling evidence to explain this particular thing.

He doesn't want to go where the Muslims go the Muslims go there and basically say well, he was just a big fat liar and He was a corrupter and he wanted to you know, he just wanted religious power and authority other people

He doesn't want to do that because he knows that that really doesn't fit with the historical evidence And he doesn't have the overriding presupposition of surah 4157 of the

Quran To push him that direction Let me give you an example

A well -known example from the Middle Ages of one of the most famous Jews of the Middle Ages Shabbatites V Who was thought to be the

Messiah by many Jews who in fact thought of himself as the Messiah But near the end of his life converted to Islam He joined his enemies

Does that show anything about the truth claims of Islam? Does that show that Muslims are right and the

Jews are wrong theologically because somebody converts from being an enemy to being a friend Paul did convert from being an enemy to being a friend.

It's not unheard of. In fact, it happens a lot Mike might point to me as an example

The other interesting thing in Mike's recent rebuttal was

That it came out that there are other things lurking behind the scenes

When it comes to what he considers to be historical evidence of the resurrection He didn't mention these things in his beginning speech.

And so I haven't referred to them in my rebuttal which is in contrast by the way with with Mike attacking my wishful thinking hypothesis that I haven't talked about because I'm not

I mean It's not not the position I'm taking so So his rebuttal of it is somewhat beside the point because it's not not what

I'm arguing I disagree In the preceding section where he played airmen where he says this is what

I think happened That is the wishful thinking hypothesis. That is the longing for seeing

Jesus, etc So that he may want to call it something else. I whatever he wants to call it doesn't matter to me But that is his hypothesis.

That is what he has said in preceding debates on this and I've never quite understood why folks would complain that you would listen to what they said before and Make your presentation relevant to their actual position.

I you know I've had a few folks however in debate who didn't like it when

I did that Mike on the other hand appears to have a couple things lurking behind the scenes that are he seeing as evidence the two things that he's

Relying on are the reliability of our sources and the fact of an empty tomb

This became clear in his rebuttal and I don't want him to deny it because I just heard him talk about them

When I talked about Apollonius, he said the difference is that with Apollonius we have late sources

They are not eyewitnesses and they are biased That's what he said

Now that's what I said about our sources for the resurrection of Jesus and he said it was irrelevant

Now it's either relevant or it's not relevant If it's relevant, then you have to discount the

Gospels and if it's irrelevant, you cannot discount the sources for Apollonius or you defend the

Gospels against the really bad argumentation that Bart Ehrman made and Therefore you can properly then criticize

The other sources and be consistent, but if you're just not willing to do it

If you're and you know, I don't know the whole reasoning and thinking here

But I remember very clearly the last time I listened to the Ehrman Craig debate on this subject

It did drive me nuts that William Lane Craig was unwilling to engage in a defense of the biblical text in defense of the sources and That seems to be the approach of this perspective is don't let them get you off onto that It's not getting off onto that.

That's the only place you can meaningfully stand to make the Christian claim To make a sub -christian claim about probabilities

Doesn't work It doesn't work to say Jesus rose from the dead. We don't know who raised him

We don't know what the purposes are but once you've accepted that that I'm gonna slowly try to move you into a higher view of the sources and a higher understanding of The coming of Jesus or something like that.

I'm sorry. It just doesn't work and I think you're you're hearing that If you're listening very carefully

With respect to Apparitions he acknowledged that there are apparitions.

He has friends who have had apparitions In other words, we know that apparitions are historical phenomena

They are well established that people have visions of people who have already died

I'm arguing that Jesus followers had visions like the visions his friends have had

Except that he himself explicitly made a distinction between the kinds of apparitions that his friends have had and the apparitions of the

Apostles which were not apparitions but encounters with the risen Christ which Needed to be

I would admit needed to be a little bit more strongly emphasized. But again Mike was lucky to get anything out given the

State of his voice and so we can probably just let that slide by but Airman is missing that point.

These are historically documented. They can be historically documented because they're events that transpire

What about resurrections? Are they events that transpire? We don't know they would be miracles

He points out though that with these apparitions. Nobody goes to check to see if the tomb is empty

This is my point the empty tomb is lurking behind his apologetic well, duh,

I Mean I Didn't know that was actually up for argumentation.

But yeah, yeah, that's mm -hmm If we're gonna talk about the resurrection the empty tomb is sort of important but maybe what he's talking about here is well, but I don't want to Go into that because that requires me to go to the

Gospels. I don't want to use the Gospels, etc, etc If that's the case, well, then it might be a valid argument. But yeah, that's that's definitely a part of the

Christian apologetic It's the empty tomb that at the end of the day convinces him about the apparitions

But you'll notice he hasn't marshaled any evidence for the empty tomb He's simply asserting that if people had apparitions they would have go they would have gone to check the tomb

This is where historians have some things to say as It turns out historians know what happened to crucified people in the

Roman Empire They generally were not allowed to be buried in family tombs

Generally, that would be the case And if all we've got are historical probabilities rather than sources that are meaningful and accurate then

I don't know what you can say But is it not Mark for example who records for us

Joseph of Arimathea going to Pilate and Asking for the body of Jesus and that Joseph is in a position to do so Joseph is known to Pilate then you have

Pilate going he's dead already and Of course, we know Muslims go. Oh, look, that's a oh, how could he say that?

But then you have a centurion going ascertaining and witnessing to verifying certifying the death of Jesus very very important and Upon that certification then the granting of the body to Jesus All of that's right there

But it's in the sources and if you've already said I'm not really gonna defend the sources

I'm just gonna go with this, you know probability argument. Well, then Again, you're not really in a position to say much more

In most instances they were thrown in common graves where their bodies deteriorated and disintegrated within days

So if he wants to talk about the empty tomb then then we will have some more things to talk about But if he doesn't want to talk about the empty tomb, then his his statement about apparitions is no longer applicable

If you see what I mean Mike has pointed out that Historians need to consider their bias.

Let's talk about biases for a minute Mike is a believing conservative

Evangelical Christian who believes in his heart of hearts that Jesus was physically raised from the dead

Now listen very carefully here because we're not just biases one way one thing but what we're really talking about here are the presuppositions of the worldview that we hold and He's going to be arguing here.

He's going to be using the reverse of the Paul argument Let's see if he's consistent in doing it

He approaches his historical study With that as his firmly held belief.

I too once believed that and I approached my study of the

New Testament with the same belief the result of my scholarship led me to renounce my former beliefs and I have to say

I left the evangelical fold kicking and screaming. I Did not go easily you know,

I don't have a lot of time to develop this but reading God's problem and noting that There's a different definition of evangelical here he's using it much more broadly

Than I think is is warranted because according to his own story in God's problem There was a period of time when you wouldn't have described him as an evangelical as much more into a liberal denomination

So I I'm not sure how to put all this stuff together, but he's still basically saying look I Was convinced by my scholarship that these things are not true

That is a clear anti -pauline the the the backwards trip of of Paul a claim on Airman's Park I wanted to hold on to my faith.

I tried to hold on to my faith I did everything I could to hold on to my faith But I got to a point where I realized that the historical evidence did not support my faith

Actually in God's problem what he says was it wasn't Historical evidence it wasn't textual issues.

It was the problem of suffering that caused him to convert not a collapse of as a result of scholarship and study of these particular issues

I Did not go with my personal bias Quite the contrary.

I ended up changing my mind despite my bias So it won't do to say that I'm biased against the resurrection

Because for the majority of my adult life I believed in the resurrection and wanted to believe in the resurrection and tried to believe in the resurrection

Mike on the other hand has wanted to believe in the resurrection, and he does believe in the resurrection The problem is dr.

Ehrman doesn't seem to want to recognize the nature of his current presuppositions and the religious nature of The worldview that is still his that really becomes the problem.

I think that we have here and I'm sort of wondering how it's going to come up in our own debate when we're talking about the role of inspiration the supernatural element because it's part of the debate thesis and His worldview does not allow for the idea of inspiration to begin with So that is going to be

I think rather problematic and rather interesting to deal with I Want to deal with at least one or two of the questions in the from the audience

So we'll pick that up on Tuesday, and I want to deal with the one specific one that did well specifically was asked

But did not get answered and that's we'll do on the buying line on Tuesday. Thanks for being with us today We'll see you on Tuesday Lord willing

God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o

Box 3 7 1 0 6 Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks