Mythos or Logos: How Should the Narratives about Jesus' Resurreciton Be Understood? Licona/Craig vs Spangenberg/Wolmarans

00:00

Mythos or Logos: How Should the Narratives about Jesus' Resurreciton Be Understood? Licona/Craig vs Spangenberg/Wolmarans

April 16, 2025

Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Willian Lane Craig contend that the texts about Jesus’ resurrection were written to teach a physical, historical resurrection because when understood in their first-century Jewish Palestinian context, there is no other way the writers would have conceived of them. Dr. Spangenberg and Dr. Wolmarans disagree, arguing that they are later developed stories and myths taken as fact. This episode of the Risen Jesus podcast features a 2010 debate between the four scholars on this important topic.

Transcript

Hello, this is Dr. Kurt Jarrus. In today's episode of the Risen Jesus podcast, we hear from Dr. Licona and Dr. William Lane Craig as they debate two skeptical scholars on the historicity of the resurrection stories of Jesus. Dr. Spangenberg contends that these narratives were developed as part of a grand narrative at the time of Constantine, and Dr. Wolmarans.

Dr. Spangenberg proposes that they are myths Christians have taken as fact. Doctors Licona and Craig disagree and argue that the texts of Jesus' resurrection were written to teach a physical, historical resurrection. This is the Risen Jesus podcast.

Thanks for listening. Good evening and welcome all the way from England. I just want to like to know what are your thoughts on the debate tonight.

What did you come here to see? What do you expect? What do you come here for tonight? I've worked a lot in schools in England where a lot of the kids would have different viewpoints because they'd be from several various backgrounds from across the world. I'm really interested in just broadening my own horizons and perspective, but in particular here in the Christian argument against a lot of the suggestions that are put out there in the world. So, yeah, I'm really keen to hear from different types of people and hear different opinions.

John, just briefly, what are your expectations of tonight? What did you come here for? What do you expect? Well, first of all, because I believe in the historic resurrection of Jesus, I'm expecting that we are going to get a very good defense of it, and people are going to be challenged who disagree with that view that they need to rethink their position. Give them a sign on this debate. I would just like to know, what are your thoughts on the debate? What are your expectations? What do you come here for to see tonight? It's a city I hope that truth will prevail.

It seems to be a certain degree of confusion that's been injected into the foundation of truth of Christianity by people like Spunnemberg and Walmarans. It's nice to see that they hope that a lot of their confusion tonight will be delayed. But in terms of their late, they will be open to key presentations about both of the speakers of 12 minutes each, and we will time them, nobody will be silent.

And for alternately the delight that you started with the official play, and this will be followed by the buttons of 8 minutes each, and then they will get around 30 minutes for an opportunity to address questions from their audience. And we will explain that in many times. Thank you very much, and thank you for being forward.

It was a pleasure to see you all in terms of your family members. Thank you very much and good evening. I know that I speak for my, as well as for myself, in saying how delighted we are to be here visiting South Africa.

We really enjoyed the beauty of the cake, as well as who have won the hospitality, and were grateful for the invitation to participate in tonight's important debate. And I want to thank all the sponsors for the hard work that's gone into preparing for tonight's event. Now the question before us tonight is how should we understand the narratives about Jesus' resurrection? In answer to that question, Mike and I are supposed to defend two major contentions in tonight's debate.

One, the text of the New Testament teaches that Jesus' resurrection was a physical, historical event. And two, there's no good reason to deny this traditional understanding of the texts. In my opening speech, I'm honestly in favor of that first contention, and then I pass the ball to Mike to defend the second contention in his opening speech.

So, what can we say on behalf of our first contention of the text of the New Testament, teach that Jesus' resurrection was a physical, historical event? Well, a lot. Over the last past century, there's transpired a revolution in historical scholarship concerning the New Testament records in Jesus. What has occurred is what one scholar aptly calls the Jewish Reclamation of Jesus.

Historical scholars have come to appreciate that the proper context for understanding Jesus of Mass with is not right-hanging culture or religion, but first century, past evening, Judaism. Jesus and all of his disciples were Jews, and it's against that background of the gospels, irony understood. This realization has profound implications for our interpretation of the New Testament texts concerning Jesus' resurrection.

Jewish hopes for the resurrection of the dead were without exception the belief in a literal, physical resurrection of the body. Hence, Jewish funerary practices included preserving the bones of the deceased in Asuaries or bone boxes in holds of the resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. Jews believed in a bodily, physical resurrection from the grave.

Thus, when the New Testament writers speak of Jesus' resurrection, they take this resurrection to be taken as a literal, physical event. In the words of the eminent New Testament scholar Rynn Brown, it is not accurate to claim that the New Testament references to the resurrection of Jesus are ambiguous as to whether they mean bond-like resurrection. There was no other kind of resurrection.

And so if I, for example, the Apostle Paul, in verse Corinthians 15, discoursing a link in answer to the written-view question, how are the dead raised with what kind of body do they come? The sermons in the book and act similarly present Jesus' resurrection as a literal event in his sermon just like the crucifixion and burial of Jesus' events verified by witnesses. And of course, the whole, empty-tuned tradition in all Philharmospels shows clearly where Jesus' resurrection was not thought of as a mere metaphor but as a literal, physical event. As the late John E. T. Robinson once nicely put it, with respect to Jesus' resurrection, it wasn't just that there was nothing to show for it.

Rather, there liberally was nothing to show for it. That is to say, an empty tomb. The true explanation of Jesus has had the further effect of enhancing the gospel's historical credibility with respect to the life of Jesus.

Jesus is now widely recognized with carried out a ministry of miracle weighting and exorcisms as signs of the inauguration of the kingdom of God in the human history in his person. The events of Easter had been no exception to this revolution in scholarship. Back in the 1930s and 40s, the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb was widely dismissed as a late legend and even an embarrassment for the Christian faith.

Similarly, the disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection was taken to be the result of the disciples' fervent faith in Jesus. This skepticism concerning the events of Easter was a spent force by the late 1960s and then began rapidly to receive. Today, the majority of New Testament's by far agreed on the following four fast.

Number one, after his crucifixion, Jesus of Nazareth was interred in a tomb by and heard the Jewish Sanhedrin named Joseph of Aramathalia. As Johnny T. Robinson states him, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus. Two, Jesus' tomb was then found empty by a group of his men and followers on the Sunday morning after the crucifixion.

Even so hostile, a critic, as Varna Erman recognizes, that we have, in his words, solid traditions not only for Jesus' burial, but also for the women's discovery of the empty tomb. And therefore, he says, we can conclude with some certainty that Jesus was in fact buried by Joseph of Aramathalia in a tomb, and the three days later, the tomb was found empty. Three, various individuals and groups of people on multiple occasions, about their different circumstances, saw appearances in Jesus alive after his death.

This fact is universally acknowledged by New Testament scholars. Even the skeptical German New Testament critic got new to mind concludes, it may be taken as historically certain that people who had the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death, in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ. And final number four, the original disciples believed in Jesus' resurrection was not the result of their faith in him, or of wishful thinking, but quite the contrary, their faith in him was the result of their hadn't comfortable to you that he was risen from the dead.

And he rightly explains, if did nothing happen after Jesus' death, then any first century Jew would have said he was another deluded fanatic. That is what, as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him. The historical foundations of believing in Jesus' resurrection are thus surprisingly well tested, and aren't recognized as such, by the majority of New Testament scholars today.

In fact, I was talking about himself in his card, O the Azos, the hell of mine, and outstanding affirms all four of these historical facts. His rejection of Jesus' physical resurrection depends more on his philosophical views about the existence of God than on historical considerations concerning the texts of the New Testament. That leads me then to our second main intention, that there is no good reason to deny this tradition of understanding the New Testament text.

I can not say a couple of words about this intention before asking Paul to die from the corner. The New Testament texts to affirm his reasoning through Jesus' race is rebondling from the dead, such an event would literally be a miracle and event caused by God. And of course, if you don't believe in God, then you are not going to be opened in any such miraculous explanation.

Both of the respondents, and doctoral nuns, have been quite candid about their non-theism. Dr. Sponner says, and I quote to prevent confusion, I do not talk of God with a capital G anymore, but of God lower case G or the divine. God, as he is portrayed in the Bible, is only a human construct.

I myself choose to think and talk avianistically about God, little G, the divine. Dr. Vollernon's likewise repudiates theism, in favor of a religion of nature, even rewriting Psalm 23 to read the earth cares for me like a shepherd, as long as I read the earth, though of afternoon. Now, obviously, if you don't believe that God insists that you have to reject the miracles of the New Testament, like your resurrection, as Dr. Sponner writes, since God can no longer be conceived in the history of terms, it becomes not sensible to seem to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

This day, none of us believes that corpses can come alive in and walk about you. Now, of course, it's perfectly legitimate for the non-vious to reject the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation of the heavens. But what is not legitimate is to twist the texts of the New Testament to make them say what you want them to say in order to fit your worldview.

If the anonymous theologian can no longer believe in the theistic worldview of the New Testament writers, then you should have the honest, innocent, plainly, with Christianity as just false. Rather than engaging the illogical double-talk claiming to affirm Jesus' resurrection, but denying that it really occurred. In any case, why think that theism here is no longer a tenable worldview? The death of God theology of the mid-1960s didn't even outlive that decade.

Instead, over the last 40 years, there has been a tremendous revival of theism in philosophical circles, so that today many of England and America's finest philosophers, at our most prestigious universities, are outspoken, theists. I'm sure they'd be quite surprised by the announcement that their view is now outmoded and untenable. In summary, then, we've seen that the texts of the New Testament, when interpreted in their proper choice setting, changed in Jesus' resurrection was a physical, historical event.

What we now want to hear from our esteemed colleagues is some good reason to deny this traditional understanding. Thank you, and thank you for the invitation. I would like to take a few questions.

With the invitation from the book, reading medical narratives, by the medical scholar, that medical scholar, John S. Fothelman. Or rather, if you just give him a summary of those four issues, starting with an introduction, or patch on the four narratives, the apostles, taking touch on the grand narrative of Christianity, and he means he come to the historical Jesus. Now, the quotation from Thomas Fothelman's book, who either writes a score of his packages himself as the narrator, to see the position of narrator.

What does that mean? The narrator draws those lines and selects those details right down to the smallest that's shooting. He is the boss of the complete service. He stretches by, skincher spreads through, characters come and catch them off again.

This leads the reader at times when he enforces these points of view through the sick and thinning. The four gospels are narratives, and should be read and studied as narratives, and not as if they are, read and read. So this is a place we should keep in mind that one gospel writers understand of Jesus, and image of Jesus will differ from another author's image of Jesus.

And this we should keep in mind when we read the endings of the gospels. Now, let me take you through the endings of the gospels. In the end now, unfortunately, I did not assume that so many people were attending.

I believe my 140 copies. Now, in order of mark, the focus is not equal to gospel. Gospel, written purely on the CDDC, does not increase gospel with an apparition.

Then then I conclude my telling that the reader, that three women made to the grave after the setup, and arrived at the tomb just after sunrise on the Sunday morning, that's 12 hours. Because in Jewish, directly, the setup ends Saturday evening. So, since Saturday evening, until Sunday morning, they were entering towards the tomb, and they arrived in with their spices and discovered that the stone was rolled away.

On entering, they saw a young man with a wedding robe. He talked in that he said that he was raised, and that he was placed away together. They should see this news with the disciples and Peter.

Then he invited the woman back away and declared she the news. This is now the oldest copy of the Gospel of Markings. There are also any of Markings of the reader to draw his own conclusions.

What should they do with the message of Jesus? The message of Mark's view? Should they fear? Why? The woman? Stay in Jerusalem? Or should they go together and continue the preaching of the Gospel? In the Gospel according to Matthew, only two women went to the Gospel without the responses. And the suddenly we were alive. And the two, protected by God's, Roman God's, they were alive at that point.

And then suddenly, they went into the tomb and then went out. And on the way, they had a mission of Jesus. And he beats the good Lord.

The angel inside the tomb gave him, gave him, and said, Jesus is on his way together. Then the gods would find him, sought some of English, a high priest, and delivered the news. And they gave him, again, a lot, that Jesus, one, was there.

Jesus immediately met the disciples on a mountain in Galilee where he commissioned him to get us all the messages and to teach him to observe all that he had commanded. Now, why does Jesus meet him on the mountain? It's not mentioned in the other classrooms. Because Matthew, in speech of Jesus, has the same in Moses.

And by Moses, Moses died on the mountain. So Jesus also, as a second person, had to get on the mountain before he saw the things. And why this emphasis on the two togethers to observe and to have taught him? Jesus is the second Moses, and they felt in his instruction that people should speak to the Lord of Moses.

And Jesus, of the gospel of Matthew, never denipments the Lord. Now, he lives nearly as long as jobs. He does four things.

The first thing is that the two, more than three women, wait until the two, nothing spices. By discovering the two is empty. Now, the family, they saw two men in asking God not to say.

The men who wanted the women about the words of Jesus, and that's called them. They then needed the disciples to break the news. And not really even.

The reason they introduced to a sin is to disciples on their way into immers. They did not recognize houses. We enjoyed it.

However, the reader knows that with Jesus, of course the narrator informs the reader that Jesus is present so that we invent more than the disciples. On the way, Jesus intends the scriptures to name that Messiah had first started and then in glorified. Nothing of the sacrificial faith.

It is only after entering the house and having a meal that I recognize Jesus, and then he suddenly disappears. And I immediately might take a journey to Jerusalem. I'm arriving in Jerusalem.

I heard that Jesus had appeared to be there. The third thing is Jesus suddenly standing in limits. I think it's a ghost.

But Jesus, the wise thing, he touches and he either eats a piece of fish in their deserts. Again, it explains the scripture to them and then he emphasizes that repentance, bringing the forgiveness of them, should be preached in his mind. Repentance, bringing the forgiveness.

The fourth thing is a method when Jesus wanted the parts and the group returns to Jerusalem. The fourth thing is summarized as In Jerusalem, otherwise it was back to Jerusalem, then, to me, and back to Jerusalem. Nothing is mentioned of a running room in Jerusalem.

But take note, anyone who was studying this gospel I think that we will see that forgiveness plays a common problem in this gospel. But this is not forgiveness based on a set of sacrificial David on the cross. You will not fire in the gospel of you.

Time must have the diameter to cover the gospel of John. But you can just launch that and you will see how he even elaborates one of all these groups in Jerusalem that has now been told and so forth. Now, when we come to the grand narrative, the lessons of the fourth and fifth century took these gospel narratives as well as what was written in the rest of the New Testament and they turned it into the grand narrative of Christianity.

This African thing led to a new Jesus character, whilst created, Jesus Christ, of the ecumenical priests, lessons to the gospel street and one place. He was conceived by the orchestra, born from the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius II, was crucified, died in death. He is saying they need to help.

On the third end of the thing, you can look at that drawing of the three individuals. Jesus comes from heaven, born on earth, eventually died, went into a house, was raised, and went back. He makes their full circle in the three native universe.

And if you don't believe me, the Christians believe that Jesus wasn't hell, basically, which is, and you can even read 1,2,3, to the scholars. Then, please don't think the three native universe is something you can welcome in these formations. Jesus came from heaven, was born on earth, from the cross, was raised, and was raised back in heaven.

Jesus Christ found a puzzle screen difference from the Jesus that were found in the gospel. It's a fairly different character. And he had even asked, why does he issue about death in Christianity? It is because it is preached in the Christian gospel or in churches that you die because of the central set of Adam and Eve.

And of course, Adam and Eve died, that is why we all die, and that is why Jesus had to die in the cross so as to be raised by God, so that he can forever live with you. Then, he said, there is a difference between Jesus gospel and the gospel which Christianity proclaims. The churches gospel is a story of a fall into him like Adam and Eve, a redemption of war by a sacrificial King of Jesus Christ, and the future of judgement of the entire human rights.

This is also called the Elchizedecian paradigm of theology. And as for Christianity, from the University of Oxford, they say, this paradigm has reached its end. Now, when we come to the loss of the fact of Christ, in a way that these platforms are recently published.

So in Christianity, it is from the Empire. Because the Christianity that we all grew up is the Christianity of the Empire. Christianity that constantly introduced Christianity was introduced by Jesus the Great.

It was not part of Jesus. He was a religion. He was at home in Judaism.

He did not believe in the Trinity. He was a part of the Trinity. He was never discovered in the three Gospels that Jesus claimed that he was part of the Trinity.

Good evening. Thank you. It's a pleasure for your time.

I just want to say how happy I am to be here in tongues. I'm a touchy. I'm proud that I am graduating under the beat of the Trinity.

I'd like to hear last year. And it's just really wonderful to be here and heal the campus. And it was great to have lunch today with several of the faculty, including two who sat on the committee for my oral defense.

Now, my doctoral studies were concerned the philosophy of history historical method and the resurrection of Jesus. Specifically, I know that about 3300 academic sources that's journal articles and books have been written on the topic of Jesus's resurrection since 1975. They allow us to do so on the skepticalness of the New Testament scholarly first through the topic we're discussing this evening as the prize puzzle of New Testament research.

And so this is a really important topic we're discussing this evening and it has garnered a lot of attention from the New Testament scholars but they all disagree so much on this and I wondered why and then I wondered how many people who have here a thoroughly historical investigation with the resurrection of Jesus had actual training in the philosophy of history and historical method. And you go around and you look at the course catalogs and most universities and their bachelor's, masters and doctoral level courses in the departments of religion and you add up all the courses offered for the students in the department of religion and religious studies in the philosophy of history and historical method. And let me tell you, it's rare as things keep them finally.

Which means you get a lot of biblical scholars getting out of school when you're coming to this common themselves historians of Jesus and they haven't had the first course on how to do history. So what I wanted to do was to find out how professional history is outside of the community of physics and how to do their work and then apply that to the resurrection of Jesus and see how different. And it was just amazing.

It really caught us. It was a lot of fun. And so when Dr. Craig asked things to be his debate partner on the rhythm at the top of the resurrection of Jesus, at talks, I can't tell you how thoroughly he was.

So Dr. Craig is openly staking, defending two major potentials. The first is that the text of the New Testament came to it. Jesus's resurrection was a physical, historical event.

And number two, there was no good reason to deny this traditional understanding of the texts. Now I just can very carefully, to what Professor Spineberg just offered. And he didn't dispute any of the four facts that Professor Craig offered.

So he didn't dispute Dr. Craig's first page of contention that the text of the New Testament teach that Jesus' resurrection was a physical, historical event that wasn't contested at all. So Dr. Craig's first contention stands. The second intention was, but by Dr. Craig, there's no good reason to deny this traditional understanding of the text.

Now Professor Spineberg's first three objections were heard. Number one, the four gospels, the fourth one teaches forgiveness that plays a large part, and sacrifices not quite as useful. The second one is concerns the apostles' creed.

It says the teachings, a lot of the teachings in the apostles' creed, is the difference grown up you find in the gospels. And third, the Trinity was introduced by the emotions the great. And I wonder, what's the relevance of any of those two nights coming? I might as well just talk about the selections I had the other evening in the conscious room, but the northwest, indeed, just as relevant.

He's had nothing whatsoever to do. They're all red hearings. Now a red hearing is a logical fallacy that comes after his pattern after the sport of fox hunting, in which a dry, smoke-carrying, that's red in color, is dragged off the path and into what's to draw off the scent of the house.

In logic, a red hearing is an interesting argument, but it's irrelevant. And if you're not careful, it's going to drag you off the path, your attention. I mean, you could be here and go, oh, that's really interesting.

Wow, well, what about that hypothesis creep in? To the royal hospitals, did they teach differently in the New Testament text? It's an interesting question. It's a different debate. And we come here this evening to discuss the question, did you, how should we interpret the New Testament text, regarding the physical resurrection of Jesus? So I want to ask us to be careful.

We can discuss this after the debate, if you are, it's an even topic. But it's irrelevant for tonight's debate. So don't be a dog and be drawn off into the place.

When you run one of these topics, you're also going to get professors from the world that science has overturned this. How should you have my professional and his opening statement? You better tell a lot of good scientists about this. For example, George Ellison, teachers at the University of Cape Town, has been described as knowing more about cosmology than anyone, even Stephen Houghton.

Christopher Eishin, a quantum cosmologist at the Imperial College of Science and Technology in London, has been called Britain's leading quantum cosmologist, Francisco Iella, one of the leading evolutionary biologists in the world. Alex Andrews grown in the greatest living astronomer. Francis Collins, the head of the human genome.

All these prominent prestigious scientists have two things in common. Number one, they're theists. In other words, they believe that God exists and acts in our world.

Second, they're all Christians. So tell them that science has now put to rest a difficult worldview. It seems to me that the only way that Professor Spungeberg can make such an assertion is that he's so caught in with the myopic view of his technical subculture that he's on a member of all the other things that are going on in science today.

And by the way, this is just a few considerations he's giving. As Dr. Craig said, this open statement has nothing to do with historical considerations. One thing I learned as I was studying the philosophy of history and historical method is that there's no such thing as an unbiased historian.

And in my doctoral research, that was the hardest thing for me to overcome, because I realized that I had a bias. I wanted the resurrection to be true. I wanted to show and through historical research.

And historians are very careful about this in saying, listen, even in non-religious matters, you have to do your best to detach yourself from your desired outcome while you're leaving or in proceedings. We're all biased given our race, gender, ethics, nationality, our religious, political, philosophical convictions. The way we're going to raise the academic institutions we attend, the very group of people, the societies of respect and desire.

There's just no way around this. Everybody is biased. And so we have to take steps in order to bracket our personal worldviews and biases while we're engaged in our historical investigation.

And the reason this is important, ladies and gentlemen, is because if Jesus rose from the dead, then I think we're all probably in agreement that God's the best candidate as the cause for Jesus' resurrection and theism obtains. So, when Professor Spahninger and his hopeful statement did, it was seen to argue backwards in terms of history. I don't believe that God exists, therefore, Jesus could be raised from the dead.

I suggest that if we're going to look at this as responsible historians, we need to own firstly evidence and neither presuppose God's existence nor our priority excluded, but adopt a position of openness and let the fact speak for themselves. Other lines, we place ourselves in a dangerous position where we allow ourselves our historical investigation to be guided by our worldviews, and that philosophy corrupts good history. So, including Dr. Crete's two major contentions, the text of the New Testament, teach that Jesus' resurrection was a physical historical event, and two, there's no good reason to deny this traditional understanding of the text.

Both stand very strongly because we didn't hear a thing from Professor Spahninger, which would cause us any harm concerning neither of these two contentions. Thank you. I would like to thank everybody for being here, especially the organizers, and Professor Crete and Turner come all the way from America to help us understand what he's playing on theology.

And especially Dr. Crete, for closing me, especially in the article, I don't think this is going to be nice. I do not want to say it for you, but I definitely do not want to go on as nature. I agree with that image.

It's got a multinic that God is the ground of all being. And my translation of Psalm 23 was taking an expression to that view of God, which is much wider than a personal God, and not just God's, putting the strength of God in his movements. Also, it's also asked me back in the home of Martyr.

I remember as a student with the blue books, their time of new transfer, one. It was regarded as a very special proof of God's existence. We want to say that they offer developments to healing God, and this very good book written by Gaurad Strong, and the history of Gaurad, which I think should be good meaning for everyone, that she shares that people in God itself, they give development in thinking about God.

I would like to discuss the question of how we should, because I don't think there's a final answer to the beginning text, how we should do this text, but how we could understand what the narratives, management relatives, are relatively relevant, and are responsible. And in short, my answer is, not literally, as you know, keeping within the parameters of scientific discourse, that the result of this analysis should be in principle open for the same, for modification of alterations. And therefore, I'm going to say something about the types of discourse that means distinguished.

I call it mythos and logos. I would say supply definition of mythos. It's a supply version of why these directions, stories in general, and its assessments, finally I will interpret the appearance of Jesus to Bhutan, and such a myth.

As a child, I remember one day we had a terrible storm, and scared of the fact that I asked my grandmother of the boys' walls, without believing in eyes she responded to the voice of God, quoting Psalms 29. Of course, my next question was, what does God say? And she started with the list of sexual duos. People should stop doing crime.

The ministers, young girls, wait, it's really a combination. You can believe it. And children should have very parents, and so on and so on and so forth.

I heard you often that you have all the evidence of mythos, which is a story explaining this reality in terms of another supernatural reality. And this gave us some sort of meaning in life. To think that somehow there is justice in God's control of his needs.

And long as of course, he is the exact opposite. It explains phenomena in terms of this reality. Later I will learn that family is forced by lightning, which causes aid to it, and compress and expand, causing this noise.

And personally, I don't think that the one this cause is better than the other. But I do think it's very dangerous to call a mythos a almost. And the history of Christianity is unfortunately full to the best I have visited.

And this can be fully defined as a story related to the response to the appearance of our inner or outer worlds by referring to another ultimately other story. In ancient times, myths are suddenly grounded in the picture of a world of few stories to which suddenly a certain eloquent universe, and which as far as I'm concerned, is not valid anymore. This is the story called vision.

This is not how we view reality. This view of the cosmos itself generated stories and characters. Meaning that the blind beings in heaven will meet messengers, angels, dreams for the blind procedures and possessed by the blind being, one can also produce ecstatic or inspired speech.

When we hear of this, we have 80s of torturous where the souls are dead, congregate, and where sinners are banished. Demons originating from their position make you sick or think you. Heroes and antiquity were special people who were connected to all three realms of the universe.

The blind being is his father, and every woman, his mother, he could do miracles, he killed, go down to the headings, and he laser received with a new body similar to that of the stars and a sink into the third story into heaven. And sometimes both would have historical hope. A Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44, before a common era.

Haliz Comet appeared in the sky. And immediately Caesar almost progressed his issue of coin with Haliz Comet on it, implying that it is the spirit of Julius Caesar receiving to heaven. And in this way, he wanted himself, son of God, he led him political propaganda.

And so Albert also opened for addition in writing and interpretation, but also in changing environment and therefore tolerate inconsistencies and contradictions. As far contagious and certain feeling, there is for example, you cannot submit it to a woman by name. Of course, there is a story about it.

God created a good animal for his story, and he is as his ultimate. And therefore much should have known him. I hope he perfectly understand the circularity of the arguments.

But you are the society, generational creation method, which he turns under principle by the natural society. But also the argument that Jesus developed into a technical and biological character, covering all three stories of the universe. Luke and Matthew surprised Jesus with the miraculous birth, and so on, and John.

He dies violently just like each with every God forming the board of the salvation of the mystery gods. In the sense into Haliz what John says, that still be the three, to be the three. And he is resurrected, appears to some special followers, and he will be the spirit of God, and the sense to heaven from which he will return to judgement and living in the dead.

And even human sees the heaven opening with Jesus sitting at the right hand of God. And this is the sense to the universe. Of course, from around the second century of a common era, Christians started to claim that what happened to Jesus was a story called truth.

And what happened to the pagan gods, the vertical meditation, exasperated cells in the late second century in jail. All our pagan believes to be accountants and ways to believe. What reasons did the Christians give for their instinct? That's what they only use.

In truth, there is nothing at all unusual enough, like the Christians believe. To which the Italian respondents of the world inspired them to mimic earlier in the history of God. In starting a core of the resurrection of Matthew, I have no idea if we can have the various researchers who are here in bit of honey.

In this vision of Jesus, as recorded by Paul, he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15. Unfortunately, the list of reservation appearances here is not up here in the hospitals. It is possible to use a resurrection as a developing story.

Randall Hamm's copy, that on the flip diagon according to the scriptures, he must add on the basis of Isaiah 6, one two-pointed out of context. The story of Joseph and Thea was added later, he was assigned a grave, again according to Randall Hamm's, with the reach of his death, but deep, Isaiah 59 is seen. And so we can go up and share with you how the story grows.

The early Christians, having been regarded as a group with Hinduism, picked up more and more ones for the Jews. So Matthew has a new story of Jews putting God at the top, too, and bribing him to say Jesus' body was stern. It is the latest of Christians talking about the resurrection of Jesus.

As the events where you brought spiritual sorrow up, that you were soul-sourced upwards, we had to be correct by trying the resurrection, because they respected Jesus as eating, drinking and burning souls to intention. The early eyewitness of the resurrected Jesus of the new distance, called himself, describes as the master's experience in various places, but may need to find you for his historic authority, as on par with the intent of James and the other apostles, and for a lot you see the Jewish people. And so the different communities are right.

In scriptures, Jewish Christians, like the Hebrews on James, has nothing specifically about the resurrection as well as the religion. The Gentile Christian is right to be in Jesus' having died for his sins, resurrected through the resurrection, and we see him as part of disciplining the Christian's sins, the same currency. It is seen in what the universal may apply to Peter.

He had written about pockets that Peter's denial of Jesus and is right away from Jerusalem, lifting with unresolved issues, unresolved feelings of guilt for the master's system of walking, seeing Jesus' resolve in his inner comfort, and supplies him with a new sense of life. He intends to be Jerusalem, and becomes one of the brothers of the Jewish community. Maybe there is more to you, from the dangerous people of this experience.

And now the Middle East has gone from the Middle East, and Caesar had to establish an alternative community to the Empire, which is characterized by love, by empathy, by intuition, by ideas. I'd like to, in my talk, I'm referring to the book, which was written by your breathing under time, and placed within the alright, flowers within the religious premium. And placed within the alright, is hard and gentle, like he does.

But doubts could last, dig up the world like a world of doubt, and the whisper will be heard in place, with the river house once stood. And with this opportunity, I'm facing my third doubts and uncertainties of thinking. Your recall that if my open speech had laid out those two contentions that might not have been defended, the first of these wasn't the text of the New Testament teach that Jesus' resurrection was a physical, historical event.

Now, Dr. Wollman says that we could interpret this another way, though he's not claiming that we should. But it seems that both of our colleagues that are going to engage you with the topic this evening, and the topic this evening is how should we interpret the texts of the New Testament concerning Jesus' resurrection? And I will certainly admit you could interpret these texts mythologically, but the problem is, if you did so, you would be wrong, because that's not the proper interpretation of the text. Dr. Wollman writes things that the novels are examples of mythological writing and keeping the stories of the river when the mythology, and therefore to be understood symbolically.

Unfortunately, I'm sorry, I said Dr. Wollman's scholarship here is just hopelessly out of date. He would have us ignore over 100 years of historical scholarship with respect to the New Testament, and revert to the mythological interpretation of the 19th century, in particular. He would have us completely ignore the Jewish reclamation of Jesus and revert to understanding Jesus against the backdrop of pagan religion.

He fails to grasp the joyousness of Jesus, and so seriously distorts the meaning of these very Jewish texts. Not only so, but the fact that the gospels were written so soon after the events that they recorded makes them utterly unlike myths, which form over centuries of development. Paul Barnett is an Australian historian, and he says the Jewish character of the Gospel message and the gravity of the time frame in which it arose are the two torpedoes that sink the mythological reconstruction.

More specifically, I think Dr. Wollman's has got the literary genre of the gospels wrong. He has chosen a professor of medieval and Renaissance literature at Cambridge University vote. I have been reading the masses, legends, myths, all my life.

I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. The gospels are not a genre of mythology.

They are historical records of Hebrew who really live of events that really occur, of places that actually existed. I think you can read about it in the works of historians like Josephus, the Jewish historian. Rather, contemporary scholars will come to recognize that the gospels belong to the literary genre of ancient biography, a king of the so-called lives of famous people.

According to the New Testament scholar Craig Keener, all four gospels fit the genre of ancient biography, a life of a prominent person. Moreover, he points out biographies were essentially historical works. He says the fact that the gospels use recent traditions and that those who can be checked are careful and they use sources that suggest that the gospels should be placed on the most reliable of ancient biographies.

So why does Dr. Wollman not think that the gospels belong to this genre of myth? Well, the base reason is his philosophical naturalism, as he says he agrees with Tilly, that God is just the ground of all being and being personal, absolutely. So anything that relates supernatural events are for him by definition, mythological, his claim is thus not pleased upon a careful, comparative literary analysis of the gospel text, rather his naturalism has led him into a disastrous misunderstanding of the gospels' literary genre. So I think when you read the gospels in your Jewish setting, their Jewishness emerges.

They are ancient Jewish biographies of this man, Jesus. And as I pointed out, they affirm consistently the honorable burial, the empty tomb, the post-war of appearances, and the very origin to the disciples believe in Jesus' resurrection. Now, Dr. Wollman says, the burial is not historical, chosen there at the age of later edition.

Let me just quickly list some of the reasons for thinking that this is historical. First, Jesus' burial is ultimately attested in independent early sources, like the pre-market passion source, the source behind the gospel of Matthew, the independent source behind the gospel of Luke, 1 Corinthians 15, and the traditionally pauled quotes that goes back within five years of the death of Jesus and the servants in the book of Acts, which record yearly apostolic preaching. So, according to Paul Barnett, I quote, careful comparison of the text of Mark and John, indicated here in these gospels is dependent on the other, and yet they have a number of incidents in common, for example, the burial of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph there in the B.N.D. and have about five independent early sources for Joseph.

What about the empty tomb? Well, let me just list some of the grounds for affirming its historicity. Number one, the historicity of the burial story implies the historicity of the empty tomb. Every site of Jesus' grave were known in Jerusalem, and two in Christian alike.

Then in movement, how could I believe in the resurrection of the dead end? Could you never have arisen and flourish in Jerusalem in the face of the enemies of that movement? They could have simply pointed to the tomb of Jesus, the occupied grave to snuck Christianity in the blood. Secondly, the empty tomb story is also multiple tested in independent early sources. It's in the pre-market passion source.

It's in the sources independently by Matthew and Ruth. It's in the gospel of John. It's implied by false tradition in 1 Corinthians 15, and it's also referred to in the early apostolic sermons in the book of Acts.

Thirdly, the tomb was probably discovered in a deep vibe. Women in 1st century Palestinian Jewish society, the testimony of women was regarded as virtually worthless. Women were not credible witnesses.

Therefore, any layered legendary account would have made male disciples discover the empty tomb Peter and John. The fact is the women whose testimony was worthless in that culture, who are the witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, is best explained by the fact that like it or not, they were the discovers of the empty tomb in the gospel, right? It was thankful to report what for them was another embarrassing and awkward fact. So by the criterion of embarrassment, the historicity of discovery in 2 and by women is likely historical.

Fourthly, the story is simple and lacks theological embellishment. If you want to see a real mentions book, just look at the apocryphal gospel of Peter, a forgery from the 2nd half of the 2nd century, after Christ, in which Christ comes out of a tomb as a giant, whose head reaches above the clouds, supported by two giant angels, followed by a talking cross and heralded by a voice from heaven. By contrast, the modern narrative is stark.

It's implicit. For these and many other reasons, the vast majority of the Testament historians have included that not only the burial, but also the empty tomb is historical. One authority is Dr. Wollman's offer on behalf of his claim that it is like to merely abuse the ramble balance who he is a retired English professor from Arizona State University.

Not, I think, a credible source. As for the appearances, these are universally acknowledged by New Testament, as well as the origin of a scientific belief in Jesus' resurrection. On all these grounds, I think, we have good reason for thinking that the intestines texts are reliable in what they teach about the resurrection of Jesus.

I normally, when I teach my students, I tell them that you will often hear the thing, the Bible teaches, the Bible teaches. The Bible sees, the Bible sees. The Bible needs to appear, and you will hear that the Bible doesn't teach, the Bible doesn't say.

You have to open the Bible and start reading. But as soon as you open the Bible and start reading, these are a lot of things in your head. You have been brought up in a certain environment.

You have been brought up with a certain number of tricks and that influences your reading of the Bible. No one reads the Bible mutually. We are all influenced by our upbringing and our church traditions.

And that is what I try to emphasize in my little speech. So if you want to study the gospels of the Bible, we cannot say the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches many things if you would like to do that.

That type of using the Bible was responsible for the support of the Bible. You do not walk up in the times when I was a young kid. When this disease the Bible teaches a Bible.

The Bible did not teach a Bible. Because when people started to read the Bible they discovered that different Christians read the Bible in a different way. So you can see that we do not all read the Bible from the mutual viewpoint.

We are influenced by the Bible, by the means of Bible. Church tradition, but we do not read in a mutual way. Think why I am giving the Trinity.

The Trinity is part of a parcel of what I call the understanding of Christianity, which was developed in the fourth and fifth century of the Christian era. Jesus never claimed that He is equal to God. Being a Jew, He would never have done that.

Because there would be blessings. Jesus believed in only one God. When someone told Him and asked Him, good Lord tell me, he said, no one is good.

He said, God, I am the ordinary man. And that is what we as Christians should return to. And there are many Christians spreading that we as Christians should return to what the Gospels teaches us about the Gospel.

The Gospel that Jesus taught was the Gospel of God's Kingdom. What is God's Kingdom? God's Kingdom is standing over and over and over again. The Empire of Romans.

When Jesus was proclaiming the Gospel of the goodness of God's Empire, He was telling that in God's root, in Christ's time, the world will never look different than how the currents were or what they were doing. People were suffering. Why did Jesus heal people? Because people suffered because of the pressure.

Jesus said, God's Kingdom will be different. And that is what we should return to resist the religion of the Empire. The Christianity that we have brought up with is the religion of the Roman Empire.

In the 4th century, the Roman Empire absurdly justified the Christian religion and made it into something of itself. And from then on Christians, turn on other Christians we did not believe in the same way that they lived. They turn on women and women as witches.

They turn on the Muslims. They turn on women either, different from women. They are the weak, they're the history of Christianity and they're the blood of history.

They're not going to tell you. The blood of history, which you can just go back to the second root of the world. What did happening? Christianity turned its back on the Jews.

It turned its back on the Jewish Jesus. That's why he's a man. The best of the group I started.

He was his father mother was Jewish. And they converted to Catholicism. And he had to decide that he would become a priest.

And he nearly died. He lost poison skills. He had to be moved all around so as to escape the dead chambers.

They discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls. And he became one of the most leading Jewish scholars of our time. And he has written numerous books.

I would love to make you read this book. The religion of Jesus the Jew. It's not the religion that you have brought up.

Jesus had claimed the gospel of God's kingdom. And isolation is a way that the early Christians turned the message which the Roman Empire attached to Jesus' cross. On Jesus' cross they said they had the king of the Jews.

If you tried to oppose Roman, you were headed. And afterwards, Christians came to tell the story. Jesus has been vindicated by God.

He has been researched. That gives us the gospel. And whether that was physical, money or money, to do good.

Not you. Not to turn the backs on people of other people. Not to turn the backs on women.

Or if you want immigrants like Paul is a misogynist, they read 1 Corinthians 15. Paul excludes the women who were present at the time. This is the religion of women.

And he tells of 500 brethren. No woman is injured. Which woman? Because Paul is not thinking the gospel of Jesus.

He has his own gospel. His gospel is the death and resurrection of Jesus. Are you possible for no Jews to become part of the new restaurants? That's Paul's gospel.

That is Paul. Paul later made Jesus in real life. He never walked with Jesus.

He actually did not really know what Jesus did. Because in Paul's place you won't hear anything about the kingdom of God. And Paul was at home in the Roman Empire.

He was a Roman citizen. Jesus was never a Roman citizen. He resisted the Roman Empire.

In fact, we should keep in mind. Thank you. Well, we still haven't heard anything from professors, but we've heard in reference to the resurrection of Jesus and why not to believe the biblical text on him.

He opened up by saying, we believe because of the environment in which we brought up. I said that in my opening statement. In terms of we all have our horizons, we all have our biases, these lead us in different directions to interpret things the way we interpret.

That's why we have to detach ourselves as best as we can from our desired outcome. While our investigation proceeds. Professor Spiderberg, all I did was present a genetic fallacy.

He said that we believe something. This is why we believe something because we are brought up. But that is nothing to do with the validity of the belief.

I could believe something for all the wrong reasons, and yet that still be a correct belief. I couldn't believe that Jesus rose from the dead because this is the way I was brought up. But that says nothing about the fact whether Jesus was raised from the dead.

I believe it because of the historical evidence pointing that way. So what else they believe is for a different reason. That doesn't mean the wrong.

It just means they believe for a different reason. He says the Bible has been used to teach apartheid. And we don't read the Bible from a neutral position.

But that doesn't prove anything except that we don't read the Bible from a neutral position and some people misinterpret it. In place of generally, this is why historical methods don't avoid it. We have an idea of historical methods from Professor Spiderberg, or Professor Walmer in this evening.

We have this. Nothing in terms of historical methods. Or why to reject the resurrection in specifics.

So this is why historical methods are so important because it reveals the strengths and weaknesses of a hypothesis. He says, Jesus never claimed to be equal with God. Red herring.

It's interesting. I can debate that. In fact, I'll stay after if you want blue candidate.

But it's irrelevant to tonight's debate. Jesus taught. He says, Jesus taught to resist the wrong empire.

Likewise, we should resist the empire. Red herring. It's completely irrelevant.

You can be correct on that. And it doesn't matter for tonight's debate, which is about the New Testament text. He says Paul is a misogynist.

Red herring. It's a important discussion. But it's irrelevant for this evening's debate.

Paul has his own gospel. No, I really don't think so. I mean, Paul talks in Galatians chapters 1 and 2. He met with the cycles of the apostle Peter in Jerusalem.

And the Greek term used there is hysteresoi. He strongly suggests that he wanted to get a history of Jesus' life and teachings and then also in the next chapter, chapter 2, he said he went up to Jerusalem again to run the gospel and ask him to make sure he hadn't been working in many of those years. He wanted to ensure he's preaching the same thing that they were preaching.

And he says they extended me the right thing to fellowship and added nothing to what I said. In other words, they were saying, you've got to quite Paul. Good job, brother.

Keep up the good work. Well, this is just Paul's saying, hey, it's mine. Well, how about Simon and Colin come? If Roman was probably a disciple of the apostle Peter, Colin is probably a disciple of the apostle John.

He's writing after the death of Paul, so they're not worried about him coming back and writing against them. So when they write, it would be interesting to see what they say about Paul. If Paul was teaching differently than what Peter and John were teaching, we would expect them to correct and try Paul and him.

Instead, we find time to say that Paul accurately and reliably talked a message of truth. We find that we put a place in Paul, one part, with this mentor Peter. Holly Park refers to the blessed Paul, quotes from Paul's writings, who refers to it as part of the sacred scriptures.

You don't do that in Paul's teaching completely differently, and his own gospel, like the apostles were teaching you. I don't even give more reasons for this, but that should suffice for now. Let's see.

You mentioned Gates of Hermesh, the Jewish scholar, and I think my own resurrection, I wrote a review of that for Review of Biblical Literature, which is part of the Society of Biblical Literature. You can read the review of that book on bookreviews.org, which is typed in my last name, Lacona, or Gates of Hermesh, and that book review will come up. Hermesh approaches that, and he has, he says, there's six different possible scenarios of what could happen.

I mean, I'll cry out, he rules out the resurrection of Jesus because he says you've got to accept it by faith. There's no way to lock you for it in terms of evidence. So he never even considers the evidence for it.

It's end of discussion for Hermesh. That's poor history, because now, again, he's allowing his worldview to guide his historical investigation. You can read more of that in that book review of your life.

Now, in my final three minutes, I'd like to just spend a few moments in this book. Professors finding their revolments are leaders in the group, the New Reformation Movement. We have a similar group in North America called Jesus Seminar.

Now, this group, Jesus Seminar, made a big splash in popular media in the 1980s and 1990s, but they never really gained any kind of popularity among scholars. In fact, they never got a follow-up on more than 150 scholars who joined them. And in fact, they were Stephen Patterson in the Jesus Seminar just a month over a month ago, which he told me that only voted on these things, about this is what all scholars were saying today, about the sayings and needs of Jesus.

He said there was rarely more than 30 to 50 people who even participated in those votes. Not a good representation of contemporary scholarship had said. So they never made a big splash amongst the academic community.

They were very popular within the media, though, and therefore they were very influential. But by the time we got to the early 2000s, even the secular popular media began to realize that these guys from the Jesus Seminar wrote a radical fringe of the theological left and stopped giving them the intention they had for so many years. And today, the Jesus Seminar has just a fraction of the public influence amongst that.

I believe that the New Reformation Movement will probably follow in the past. So if you're a fish community, you're receiving, hey, Kyle, hang on to your faith. You can see there's really nothing here that they're offering that should shake a faith in the historical case from the resurrection of Jesus.

Tonight's debate is important for that during the reason, because it gives you a few, and you can see both the uses presented in their integrity. And when you do, you really see that there's a lot of smoke and mirrors on that side and red herrings, but there's no substance in terms of a substantive argument against the resurrection of Jesus. And these weak arguments must be exposed to give the Church and Seminar that is not to become a theological backwater that's moving in the opposite direction of modern scholarship.

And so, I encourage you to stay with your faith if you're a Christian. There's no reason to be shaking in your faith as I hold peace in very clearly and see you. But on a more positive note, I do want to thank Professor Spiney for offering these challenges, because oftentimes, the Church becomes very lazy in his thinking.

And it's just a matter of just belief, because this is the way you've been raised. And that becomes dangerous. We need to be academically rigorous.

And tell us that the Scriptures, Jesus calls the love God with all of our hearts soul, mind, and strength. And our mind is sometimes often left off. Now, I'll have a discussion.

So, I hope this has been encouraging you to this evening. And we can see that Dr. Craig's, and my two major contestants this evening, have stood, despite the critical scrutiny that's been offered. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. And of course, numbers are not important. It's the values that carry us.

And I would like to compute with a story which I've already covered, he's an atheist, but he said, I believe in the reservation. And the story is called a small good thing. And I'm retelling it as a parrotor.

For the reservation, he's like a mother who went to a baker to order to live their take for a son, as was his custom, the make of work, and the knife to cleanse the deck. For this radio, the radio country has been formed into a special store, decorated with stars, and placed eight candles to the big frost. Nobody came to collect the deck.

For on his way to school, the boy was run over by a car. The parents kept vigil in the hospital. He was in a coma, and they prayed, and they bucketed.

They took turns to go home and fresh enough. The first night was the father's check. The baker was upset about his clients.

In a moment of the night, he found the customer. They said, hey, here, that wasn't picked up. The father did not know what it is all about.

He stamped the phone down, and later told his wife, now that we had to call him a secret. The next evening, it was his wife's turn to go home. Again, the friend again.

Is this about my son? Is it here, is it, he answered literally, and he's got the doubting. They didn't entertain, and they snapped the phone down. She rushed back to hospital, and no one knew who the woman was.

The next day of her time. Like that night, the phone went again. Her husband picked it up, but only the sound of country music was heard in the background.

The mother now realized it was the baker. Upset and angry, they drove down to the bakery to confront the corner. They said, what sort of person was he? To arrest him in the middle of the night about a birthday okay? And he said, what sort of people were they to order and not pay? What sort of parents would forgive their own son's birthday? Did they realize that he worked 16 hours per day? The mother screamed that her son had died.

I wanted to kill you, you asked that she explained. I wanted to make shame among you, and she burst into tears. The baker allowed himself to be crucified by a business.

And he invited them to sit down. He made him some coffee, and took a brown loaf from the oven. He broke it, and they could smell the water, and then they closed the rain.

For the first time in three days of their age, they swallowed the dark brick. He said he was sorry. And they told him about how they somehow died, and how unfair it was.

And he told him that after a child he never had, and his own lochiness, and dawged on into the oven room, the high glass of light of the windows. And they did not think of them. I'm going to give you a round of applause.

Thank you. Tonight was a lot of fun here being a tux, and the people were just wonderful. And it was just so encouraging to see how people just gravitated to the subject, and loved getting involved in the debate, and hearing it discussed.

It was neat to see a packed house here, which I'm guessing is close to 500. And then in the amphitheater outside, it was, I don't know how many people were there, but when we came in here, there were quite a few already. So it was really neat.

I think in terms of what Professor Spangenberg and Volmerin's offered, I think this is just characteristic of a lot of what we're seeing from the radical fringe of the theological left. There's a lot of red herrings. There's a lot of discussion about interesting topics, but they're just red herrings to pull you off the topic at hand.

And when you come to something that's so well-attested, historically speaking like the resurrection of Jesus, there really is no good, plausible, naturalistic explanation that can account for it. And so I thought that became abundantly evident this evening, and it was just a lot of fun, a very positive experience. In all candor, I have to say this wasn't a very good debate tonight.

I don't think our opponents really showed up. The first speech by Spangenberg was just one red herring after another. And Dr. Volmerin's really wasn't able to support any of the assertion city offered.

So frankly, I thought it was a valuable debate in the sense of exposing the superficiality and the vacuity of the point of view they were defending. But it wasn't a good debate in the sense of a substantive exchange of arguments, because frankly that was just so little on the other side. Thanks for joining us today.

If you'd like to learn more about the work and ministry of Dr. Mike Lacona, visit RisenJesus.com, where you can find authentic answers to genuine questions about the reliability of the Gospels and the resurrection of Jesus. Be sure to subscribe to this podcast, visit Dr. Lacona's YouTube channel, or consider becoming a monthly supporter. This has been the RisenJesus Podcast, a ministry of Dr. Mike Lacona.

Give it up, wife, wife, wife, wife.