Apologetics Methodologies

1 Peter and the Call to Give a Defense

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 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.

And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line. We will have the phones open today at 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 if you would like to join us. Looking at the rest of the debate material. We don't have all that much left to cover.

There is one issue. Oh, I didn't bring the book in with me. Well, there was one issue that I wanted to touch on briefly in that area. But then we can take your phone calls and often those phone calls get us off into all sorts of interesting areas.

So Just don't wait to the last five minutes of the program to do it because then it's significantly less interesting. It would be otherwise. 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number. We have been listening to a debate on The resurrection.

Is the resurrection historically provable and We have been using this not so much as a source of criticism, but as a mechanism of comparison and contrast between various apologetic methodologies and An illustration of the fact that theology matters.

Theology determines the kind of apologetics you use and obviously if you hold to a viewpoint that exalts the Autonomy of man you are hardly going to be in a position consistently to challenge a worldview based upon the autonomy of man and A humanistic worldview a worldview that is focused upon the creature and in essence demands that we have the right and ability to put God on trial and the existence of God on trial rather than seeing ourselves as his creations and Seeing ourselves in light of his sovereign purposes.

That really is the issue and even in defining what history is what is history, how do you define history and. Can you come to history with atheistic presuppositions and thereby just simply dismiss all evidence of God's activity in history?

Or do you demand? That mankind see himself as the creature. He is that he is in moral rebellion against God and that his view of history must take that into consideration. These are some of the things we've been listening to as we've been listening to Bart Ehrman and Michael Icona debate this issue.

We were listening to Bart Ehrman in part of the give-and-take rebuttal periods and you'll hear exactly what I'm talking about. Bart Ehrman's insistence that history is atheistic. That history exists separately from the realm of Christian claims and remember Christianity makes specific historical claims.

Jesus Christ came at a particular time in a particular place in particular things. This took place in history. It wasn't just some myth. This is one of the major differences between the mythologies that are so popular that people refer to today.

The the Gnostic religions the mystery religions did not have a concern for history. They did not have a concern for saying God has acted in truth. Therefore here is his truth the idea of a body of dogma of truth.

For these religions, no, it's much more subjective. It's disconnected from history. It doesn't have the same view of history that comes out of the Christian worldview, etc, etc. So let's go back to listening to what Bart Ehrman was saying because it's gonna come out once again being illustrated very clearly.

Right here in the next comments. I.

Too once believed that and I approached my study of the New Testament with the same belief. The results 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. 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.

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.

Let me just and I know I played this last time where we're getting to the important part here. But let me just comment briefly at that point. Yes, he is biased against the resurrection and even during his evangelical days if he did not have a Serious Christian worldview that was thought through as a worldview.

Then his experience as a Christian is not evidence against his bias. There are many Christians who are inconsistent. They think like the world while trying to hold on to Christian beliefs and it doesn't work and When they end up going to places like Princeton, they end up becoming non-christians.

Because they've already been non-christians in their worldview they have not seen that the Lordship of Christ extends to the entirety of one's life and. So just that statement is well, you know, I once believed these things, but did you actually have?

And I don't see any evidence of this. Did you actually have a Christian worldview? Were you even recognized for example that history itself? That the science is themselves that all of these are under the Lordship of Christ.

That to adopt an atheistic perspective in these areas is to be an inconsistent Christian. That really is the question that I would have to ask.

Mike on the other hand has wanted to believe in the resurrection and he does believe in the resurrection. Which of us is taking a historical approach? I'm not disputing Mike's beliefs.

Now which of us is taking a historical approach notice for airmen history is atheistic. History is outside of the realms of the claims of God. This is his presupposition. This what is this is gonna come up in January.

It has to come up in January because this is Fundamental to the entire presentation he's making so he says I'm not challenging your beliefs. What he's saying is your beliefs are a historical and as long as you keep them in an Ahistorical area as long as you don't dare say this stuff really happened as long as you don't dare make your your faith relevant to your worldview and to therefore my existence.

Then you're fine. If you want to just be one of the pagans who says you've got mythology. You know if you want to say Dionysus, you know was sewn into Zeus's thigh and then was born out of Zeus's thigh.

That's cool, too. No worries. Leave it in mythology. Just don't you dare say it actually happened now. He must know That what he's really saying is you must abandon your Christianity. Because that's what he did the results of his scholarship and he thinks is if he thinks his scholarship is true.

Then isn't the result of that inevitably. That if he abandoned Christianity because it didn't find to be true, then isn't that what anyone who actually loves the truth should do? Well, you would think so but for him to say I'm not challenging your beliefs this evening.

Well, no, I'm sorry in reality.

You are or your beliefs the vast majority of you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. What I'm arguing is that that belief of yours is not founded on historical evidence. The resurrection of Jesus if it happened.

Trance is I'm sorry. It goes beyond anything like historical evidence. Historical evidence cannot establish the resurrection. It is a faith claim. It is a claim that there is a God who is in control of this world who?

Created this world who sent his son into the world and raised his son from the dead. Those are theological statements. I'm not saying they're true or false. I'm saying they're not historical.

Hopefully now we're all starting to hear this. Because if you're hearing this and you're understanding this and you're seeing a wait a minute. He's he's trying to be politically correct here and say well, I'm not saying that what you believe is false.

But to make that statement what he's having to do is is to say everything you believe is outside the realm of the verifiable anyway. Everything you believe is outside the realm of truth claims anyhow.

Theological truth claims are irrelevant to historical truth claims. But he knows the very nature of the Christian faith is such that he's denying those truth claims and so Sadly most people here. I can go.

Well, that's really that's really neat that he you know, he's letting live and let live and In that wonderful and la la la and reality he is in fact doing exactly what he's saying he's not doing.

Historical statements have to do with what historians can establish is probably having happened in the past. Historians can be believing Christians. They can be Jews. They could be Muslims. They can be Buddhists.

They could be heathens. They can be apostates. They can be atheists. They could be agnostics. They could be all of the above. But the evidence they adduce has to be available to everybody that I've named or it is.

Available to everyone that you've named. But evidence is examined and weighed within a world view. And When you are an apostate agnostic Use both terms there when you when you insist upon an atheistic view of history Then you are going to dismiss as evidence That which goes against your worldview and Therefore you're going to dismiss as evidence that material that would indicate to you that Jesus rose from the dead, but it's not historical evidence.

If it's historical evidence, it's based on presuppositions that everybody I've just named can agree on not people with only one particular theological point of view. If the historical conclusion Requires a theological point of view then it's not a historical conclusion.

It's a theological conclusion. Thank you.

So again, we see the the contrast Between between the two just you know. If you've what you want to have your theology fine. You go have your theology as long as you don't make your theology wander into my history.

There is a big wall between the two and. The two shall not meet they cannot meet. Etc. Etc. So that is his presentation. Then there were audience questions. Some of the audience questions were interesting.

Some of the audience questions quite honestly were not interesting at all. Let me see if I can find. Let me let's see which question this one here is and It's this one right here and let's try it out again.

Dr. Airman one of the criteria given for evaluating Evidence were independent accounts. Doesn't the fact that some of the accounts are difficult to reconcile and assume the Gospels are meant here Indicate that they were independent.

Aren't these discrepancies similar to what one would find between witnesses and a court-ruled.

Yeah, excellent question. Did everybody hear the question. You're okay. You. Yeah, so okay, so I pointed out you need independent witnesses for. The accounts. Doesn't that show that they're independent witnesses and so doesn't that in fact.

Doesn't that increase the probability that you've got independent attestation of the resurrection.

And I'm going to stop right there just so you you know that is a good question and It will be interesting to hear airmen's response to this because there's so much of an assumption in the part of much of modern scholarship of an an overarching Process of editing or something like that.

That'll be interesting to hear what he has to say and it's an excellent point.

But the way you have to establish whether the Gospels are independent of one another is by a detailed Analysis of their similarities and their differences. Scholars have been doing this for hundreds of years.

And what scholars have pretty much shown? It's pretty standard. I assume Mike's going to agree with this mark and priority. No yes, yes, okay?

Now I Realize that there are many in the audience know exactly what he's referring to but there may be others and so let's all get up to speed. Mark and priority is the current popular viewpoint in New Testament scholarship.

It has not always been in fact down through church history it was not but mark and priority is the idea that mark is the first of the Gospels written and Then and here's the key point because it's one thing to say it's first the Gospels written.

It is a next step to say it is the first the Gospels written and mark is Used directly his it he exists as a literary body that gospel exists the literary body and is Possessed in at least copy form by both Matthew and Luke.

So that Matthew and Luke are copying from mark. Then they have access to some other source normally called the Q source. Which has nothing to do with Star Trek? Which is a collection of Jesus's sayings basically?

And the two of them make purposeful changes to mark sometimes contradicting mark and That becomes the foundation upon which both Matthew and Luke are written now. The order of the Gospels we don't know what order they were written in it's a theory.

We don't have any manuscript evidence. There's not really there's there's actually pretty decent internal evidence that at least the synoptics were written prior to destruction of the temple in Jerusalem obviously a naturalistic worldview would cause you to force it to be after the destruction of the temple because of the prophecies of the destruction in Matthew 24 etc.

And so you just if you don't believe there's such thing as prophecy then obviously that makes it post 70. But there's good reason lots of good reason for putting them pre 70 and Very very early on there are some who believe everything in the New Testament was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70.

There are others who would put John at a much later date all within the first century, but later on after that destruction Etc etc, but the real key issue is this idea of literary dependence on the part of Matthew and Luke using mark and Editing mark as they go along in essence this is the Majority viewpoint if you go to New Testament classes even in conservative seminaries.

The majority viewpoint is going to be mark and priority now. I do not hold to that form of mark and priority. I don't know what order the Gospels were written in. I don't have any particular problem with Theorizing that mark is the earliest it certainly seems to be written in that way but the idea that Both Matthew and Luke are just sitting there with mark going.

Oh, let me see here. I don't like this. I'm gonna take that out blah blah blah knowing knowing that the very same community That already possesses mark is gonna be reading down. I mean, that's one thing you know I hear I you know I know it's so common that people don't even challenge Majority viewpoints.

Well, I'm a Calvinist, so I'm used to it, but You know I always I sort of sat back even when I was at Fuller going, so does anyone ever think about you know. Exactly what this would mean and and and you know.

Do you consider the fact that if you're changing mark and the people you're gonna be giving yours to already have mark. They're gonna. Go excuse me. Hey dummy. What'd you doing? Yeah? I don't know. Those type of things cross my mind, but I personally believe that it makes much more sense In light and and my reading yes, I still have it in here.

Yeah. We're videotaping. Why do we say videotape anymore? I haven't used videotape now know how long it's a it's a it's a it's an SD card. We're digitizing. Yes, we're digitizing. So I will show this To the the digicam you're digitizing we're digitized.

Vegetizing selling Jesus and the eyewitnesses the Gospels is eyewitness testimony by Richard Balcom see there. It is I wrote the book review of this one for the CRA journal all that did was Confirm many conclusions.

I had come to in my own thinking. And that is that what you have access to. What what Matthew and Luke would have access to would be the same Tradition and I'm not using that term the Roman Catholic sense, but the same oral preaching of the church this is preaching yet you still have eyewitnesses in the church and.

So that preaching is what is prevalent throughout the churches they would travel from church to church. We know that this happened historically and so Changes from that would sort of stand out especially amongst those people who had been believers for a long period of time and It would seem to me that there would be an entire body of tradition.

That would be available To Matthew and Luke and that this is what they're referring to not to some slavish dependence upon Mark himself the similarities do the fact that all three of them are Deriving their material from that same single body of Christian proclamation that had been going on With eyewitnesses for However long it had been between the time the crucifixion the writing of the first Gospels.

Obviously, there are many who wish to push that Date as far back as possible to minimize Its connection to the actual disciples and apostles themselves and that again is one of the divides that you have between Conservatives and liberals at that point.

So that's what he's talking about when he's talking about Marken priority.

Most scholars think is that mark was the first gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used mark as a source. So whenever they change mark whenever they're different from markets because one of them has changed it for some some.

Reason of their own and this is significant because it can show you that if Matthew is different from market in any particular. It means Matthew has intentionally changed something in mark that can show you that can show you Matthew's overarching intentions.

Or Luke and so forth. Now you see what that perspective does. Is it it in essence since most of them reject John is having any meaningful historical information at all Contained within it then what you have is only one witness.

You only have one literary witness mark is being used by Matthew Luke. So Matthew and Luke are not independent witnesses in and of themselves. So you have one redacted witness. That's all you've got left.

See, that's that's that's one of the apologetic.

Issues that comes up when you utilize that that theory and so it's interesting that for example in in In some of the later Gospels It's not the women who discover the tomb. The women go off and the men discover the tomb.

And the men then serve as the witnesses. Why is that. Because the point Mike is pointing out that in fact people were people were loathe to attribute Testimony value to to what women had to say. So I don't think the mere fact that they're different shows their independent accounts.

What it shows is some accounts are being changed in the process of the transmission.

Okay, Mike, do you have any response?

Because my I'm having trouble with my voice I think I'll save it for something in which we're going to have greater disagreement on it for my quite Tana.

Are there continuing claims of Masada? See now just at that point? That's where I would you know again I feel very sorry for Mike and his voice that day. It's pretty rough. But you see that's what that's what's got to be challenged right there.

And and that's again this particular spectrum of apologetics is so closely wedded to that kind of Viewpoint in regards to oh, yeah sure you know mark was just being slavishly copied and changed by Matthew and Luke and stuff like that.

That they really don't. They have to go. Yeah, okay, and that's the only relevant deal with airmen. That's relevant dealing with with Islamic apologetics and its claims concerning You know Pauline corruption all the rest of stuff again.

You know what what can we say? Theology matters. Let me go a little bit down here because we've got a phone call to get to. And let me try to get to that last question.

Question for Mike and then we'll throw one out for both. Response. Both participants to respond to Mike. Is there any historical evidence? Independent of the Bible for the resurrection. Now it depends.

You know I you know at this point my first response is may I please point out to you that the New Testament records are historical evidence. That they that their testimony as historical Witnesses cannot simply be dismissed, but of course if you haven't defended that up to this point.

It's a little bit late when you're. This is 156 out of two minutes and two hours and two minutes. So you're down the last six seven minutes of the of the debate?

So it's a little late to be getting to that, but I think we could look at something like Tacitus crucified Jesus. That Christianity was checked for the moment, and then it broke out again in Judea. Where the evil mischievous superstition started?

I think this just shows a consistency with what we find in the New Testament in the Gospels and Acts same thing with Josephus in a disputed passage. But most Josephus scholars agree that Josephus mentions Jesus in that passage that he was crucified by Pilate.

And that his disciples continued to follow him so in a strict sense. I'd say No, we have to look at the New Testament as ancient documents here. And that we can. I could look at the Quran, and I don't believe it's divinely inspired.

But I still can as a historian look at different things and conclude different things. Such as there's one surah that has Jesus and God talking and God says did you tell them you're my son? Or did you tell them that you Mary and me are God's and Jesus says no far be it from me.

You know I never said that. I've only said I'm your servant. I don't believe that that conversation happened, but it tells me that Muslims and Christians were having this debate on who was Jesus. Is he divine or just a man and Same thing with the New Testament the case I've given this evening by the way.

That's surah 5 116 through 117 if you're looking for it wouldn't assume at all divine inspiration. We could look at it simply as an ancient doc compilation of 27 different sources ancient sources and.

Make our conclusions based on that and again. That's that's where we we just have to differ is. This idea that well we can we can we can divorce The New Testament documents from what they say about themselves and simply we're going to step on to this neutral ground with you.

This is a theistic history theory of yours, and we'll do battle with you on that ground. And and I say to you it doesn't work. You you can't get to the Christian God from that perspective again. It goes back to the beginning presuppositions that you that you have to be consistent at that point.

Okay, the really good question the um people are surprised to know. How little information we have about Jesus outside of Christian sources from antiquity you would think you'd have you know? Birth records or accounts of the trial or his enemies talking about him or Rome.

Why would you think any of that that that that amazes me? I mean of all the people who've lived on earth how many of them do we have that kind of serious information about the live. That time. Almost none almost zero.

So why especially in Palestine at that time in history would you expect that I?

I don't know. I haven't figured that part out an official saying something. In fact nobody says anything about him during the entire first century. Except for Josephus the Jewish historian is two references to him.

Within a hundred within a hundred years of Jesus death. He's only mentioned four times in any non-christian source in Tacitus the reference Mike was giving in Pliny the Younger Three years earlier and possibly in Suetonius the Roman historian and in Josephus.

There just see this as two references, so there's five references to Jesus. These references tell us almost nothing about who Jesus was or what he did or what he said and Strikingly none of them says anything about Jesus being raised from the dead.

My I had something on that, but I don't think it's it's as bad as the time of Jesus ministry for him. We have just as many Non-christian sources many non-christian sources who mentioned him within 150 years of his death as we have of Jesus Non-christian sources who mentions him within 150 years of his death and Caesar Augustus the most prominent emperor of Rome.

We only have four primary sources that mentioned him and most of these are more than a hundred years after his death.

2 Historical Evidence, Presuppositions, and the Resurrection

One last question. Okay, here's the last question. This is how the debate ends.

I'll just let the whole thing play out the response from both sides. I'll read it to each of you. Your response both John and Mark are correct about the Passover meal because the Messiah Honored the Passover of Yahweh as written in Leviticus 23 on the 14th of Abib Whereas the rabbinical Jews celebrate the Passover on the 15th of Abib.

Yeah, Mike you agree.

I feel like I'm in my PhD exam again. I don't know. Okay, so let me tell you what the what what that meant. The prop. The problem is Mark explicitly indicates that Jesus celebrated the Passover meal. John explicitly indicates that he was crucified the day before the Passover meal.

And so the question is saying that there are different groups of Jews Celebrated the Passover meal on two different days. So both Mark and John could be right. On the surface that sounds plausible. But the reality is Jews in Jerusalem in the first century did not celebrate Passover on two different days.

They celebrated on one day because there was only one day that the lambs were killed in the temple on the day of preparation for Passover. John says that's the day that Jesus was killed on the day of preparation Mark says he was killed the next day.

And so there's an inconsistency.

I do hold to biblical inerrancy. However, I have to admit I don't know the answer to this one.

All right. Let's give both of these gentlemen.

Well, I would direct you to the rather full discussion of that very issue Provided by dr. A .T. Robertson and his army of the Gospels. This was a textbook that I used in Bible College and he points out he goes through each one of the specific texts in John and Demonstrates that the consistent usage of language in John is consistent with a synoptics that John is not.

As was just claimed. Specifically stating that Jesus is crucified before the Passover. But if you recognize the Passover is not just one day, but is an entire celebration. That there is no inconsistency and again John is writing if if their theory is correct and John's last one to write.

Wouldn't he know what Matthew Mark and Luke said? And why in the world would he specifically make his different? Well for literary purposes, come on. It's it's it's frustrating at that point, but anyway again.

Only did this series for the intention of helping people to see that you know, sometimes the apologetic realm can be somewhat confusing and One of the reasons is because we have different Methodologies, we're starting from different starting places and where you start is going to determine where you win.

We're gonna take a break. Take your phone calls 877 -753 -3341. We'll be right back everyone. This is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man-centered self-help program.

The need for a no-nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater. I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin. Alpha and Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses.

Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior? We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well. Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you. Public crimes the criminal mishandling of God's Word may be James White's most provocative book yet White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.

Based firmly upon the bedrock of Scripture one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word. What has happened to this sacred duty in our day?

The charges are as follows. Prostitution using the gospel for financial gain pandering to pluralism cowardice under fire felonious eisegesis entertainment without a license and Cross-dressing ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women is a public crime occurring in your town.

Get pulpit crimes in the bookstore at a omen org.

3 The Q Source, Markan Priority, and Gospel Independence

And welcome back to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning. The phone lines are open at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. There's been all sorts of stuff going on out there and Some of which I don't even want to begin talking.

Yeah. There's there's definitely one topic in the blogosphere right now. We ain't touching with a 10-foot pole. I like having my website right where it is. Ain't going there you. But there has been some wild stuff by the way I am I Am about a third of the way through the shack for those who have been wondering and I'm only reading it when I have opportunity.

I'm not putting anything else aside just to get to that. But I have been working on it because I think there there does need to be some commentary offer that I wouldn't be the first one. Obviously, I'm a little slow getting to it.

I think Tim Charlie's was on in January but slow getting there, but I I think maybe I will Do something on that have some commentary on that sometime in in the future all right? Let's go to our our single phone caller at the moment unfortunately and Like I said eight seven seven seven five three three three four one is the phone number.

Let's talk with Arlen. Hi Arlen. Hello, how are you sir? I'm sorry yes so far the only one. Feel so honored.

Okay, well just so that you know who I am I'm Atlanteans from the blog the apparently I'm a Molinist. I'm not sure what that means exactly, but Okay, I if you don't remember me then.

Then sorry, then I'll try to forget this awkward moment. Atlantean Atlanteans from the blog from the The chat room thing. Oh the chat channel, okay, all right, yeah. Yeah, you were last seen quitting the channel six weeks three days and 13 hours and 50 minutes ago actually.

That's strangely creepy to know that yeah.

Would you. Would you like to know what you were wearing when you left? Yeah.

On a mission trip actually that's Basically where I've been anyway. My question is this and I'll phrase it in the sense of I would like a critique for it. I Believe that the book that the Gospels were written before 70 AD all four of them I think that's relatively.

I don't see that. There's a really strong argument otherwise and My point going would go essentially that Luke Would have to have been written before Paul died because that ends before Paul died. And there's no reason and so abruptly there's no apparent reason why it would.

I'm sure there's a lot more to that, and I think that your idea about It being written for his trial makes a lot of sense. Well.

That's not my idea, but I think. I think it makes sense. So yeah, but and from there. I would.

Back go back to how the early Fathers generally say that Matthew was written first etc. Etc. I just want to know What you think especially in light of people who would read bar airmen. What a strong? What some of the strongest point would be that would?

Reinforce the early dates. Well, you know that that's that is a good a good question for the vast majority of people sadly. Just taking the time that it took you to explain the relationship of Luke and axe and the death of Paul Sadly in my experience Extends beyond the attention span of most the people we're talking to.

I mean yeah, I think it's terrible but that's just the way it is and You'd almost have to make sure that you're in. Yeah, I think part of having success in this is phrasing your presentation in such a way as you can get past that a Historical.

I don't really want to think much more about this type thing and so if you can in some way shape or form Communicate the fact that you know it's interesting you said that this means a lot to me and I've done some thinking on this and have you ever considered this sometimes just that little bit of Introduction the beginning can sort of extend the extent of the the attention span out a little bit.

You can't assume That that they would even know who Paul was. I mean you just mentioned Paul you and I know Paul. But it's really tricky to be honest with you to try to make sure that when you are Making even a fairly simple case that you're giving enough background information.

They have some idea. Why what you're saying is relevant for example even mentioning that that we can be pretty confident about the the the timing of Paul's death and therefore have some sort of a You know benchmark there that we can that we can utilize.

I'm sorry.

It's gonna just. How do we know that when Paul died? Well again.

We don't know exactly when Paul died however the fact that Acts ends where it where it ends and when we take into consideration the material found the pastorals which again Someone like airmen is going to dismiss anyways just just for on other on other grounds but when we when we take those things in consideration and also understand when Various emperors reigned and when the Neronian persecution was and things like that.

We we can have great confidence that we're talking about the early part of the seventh decade or the early 60s As the as the farthest end point because if he was still around there'd be some evidence that he was I mean the guy he'd like to write letters, but And we can utilize his letters to establish Certain things or certain people are mentioned that that we have been able to identify for example in Corinth the Crispus as I recall Is mentioned there and and we know about when that person was there things like that, but you asked for the strongest arguments.