Are there credible witnesses to the resurrection?

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Uh, no. You don't get to make an extraordinary claim and assert that it must be true unless someone can produce a counterexample. That is a blatant false dichotomy.

I never once said that "it must be true unless someone can produce a counter-example". I am stating the limitations of the evidence that is provided on both sides. There is evidence that supports the claim of the resurrection. Is it absolute proof? No. Does it prove beyond a reasonable doubt? For some the answer is yes, for others the answer is no. All I have ever said was that if all the evidence that supports the claim of the resurrection is taken into account, it would be reasonable for someone to choose to believe that the resurrection happened. In fact, for many individuals, the evidence is undeniable. But as you know, without absolute proof, any and all evidence is subjective to one's level of skepticism.

Sometimes people come to believe things very strongly. Even strongly enough to die for those things. Does that in any way demonstrate the truth of their claim?

No. It demonstrates their own belief in the truth of the claim. Nothing else.

What you are not grasping is the fact that we are not talking about martyrs who died for what they thought to be true. We are talking about people dying for what they know to be false.

Let's say a man witnessed a gang member murder someone and told the witness that he would kill anyone (and their families) if they snitch. Despite the risk, the individual agrees to testify anyway. However, if it was a lie, the gang member being falsely accused would kill him and his family out of revenge of the wrongfull accusation. So why would the man risk his life and the lives of his family? The more reasonable explanation is because it was true and he wanted to ensure the murder is off the street. It would be unreasonable to assume that he just had some beef with the accuser and was willing to risk his life and the lives of his family for what he knew to be false.

So it would be reasonable to believe that the disciples who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection risked their lives for what they believed to be true. It would be unreasonable to believe that they were all delusional at the same time and it would be less reasonable to assume that they would all die for what they knew to be false.

I would believe neither case.

I assume you believe in abiogenisis or spontaneous generation of life. If there is no God, what other option do you have? Of course you can simply say "I don't know" as usual. However, you really have two options. Either organic matter was created by inorganic matter naturally or it did not. There is no other option. Yet there was no witnesses or any evidence to suggest the spontaneous generation of life. So in reality, to believe in spontaneous generation is a product of blind faith because there is no evidence or witnesses to make the assertion reasonable. At least there is some evidence and some witness testimonies for the resurrection. Thus, we can have a reasonable faith in the resurrection and we would have to have a blind faith in abiogenisis. It seems as though science and naturalists seem to be the ones with the double standard.

 

[miknik5]

1 John 2:27 and John 3:8 are sufficient proof

That same outpouring upon His disciples then is the same outpouring upon His disciples today

And those born of His life giving Spirit have the proof of THAT WITNESS who testifies with our spirit that HE is risen!

And lives!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

1 John 2:27 and John 3:8 are sufficient proof

That same outpouring upon His disciples then is the same outpouring upon His disciples today

And those born of His life giving Spirit have the proof of THAT WITNESS who testifies with our spirit that HE is risen!

And lives!

I agree. However, scripture means nothing to someone who doesn't believe the bible is a credible source. We must use extra biblical sources that they trust. Which is difficult when any extra biblical source that is mentioned is immediately discredited for whatever reason they choose.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Also it is important to note that with every negation requires an affirmation. So we cannot say that the resurrection did not occur (negation) without knowing what actually happened (the affirmation).

 

[miknik5]

I agree. However, scripture means nothing to someone who doesn't believe the bible is a credible source. We must use extra biblical sources that they trust. Which is difficult when any extra biblical source that is mentioned is immediately discredited for whatever reason they choose.

Good luck

I understand

I just don't have the patience to go backwards to the words of men to provide the "burden of proof"

I know what I know
And I know whom I learned of and from whom I learned it

I guess that's why HE said no one will need to tell another "know the LORD"

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you have 1 credible witness about an event (any one) took place 2000 years ago?

Yes, of course. There is strong contemporary evidence that alexander conquered much of the world, or that Ceaser crossed the rubicon..

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yes, of course. There is strong contemporary evidence that alexander conquered much of the world, or that Ceaser crossed the rubicon..

Yet within 100 years after their deaths, more books were written about Jesus than Cesar. Interesting.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I never once said that "it must be true unless someone can produce a counter-example".

You sure made it sound that way.

I am stating the limitations of the evidence that is provided on both sides.

I don't need evidence on my side. I don't set out to disprove magical claims, because the burden of proof is not mine.

There is evidence that supports the claim of the resurrection. Is it absolute proof? No. Does it prove beyond a reasonable doubt? For some the answer is yes, for others the answer is no. All I have ever said was that if all the evidence that supports the claim of the resurrection is taken into account, it would be reasonable for someone to choose to believe that the resurrection happened. In fact, for many individuals, the evidence is undeniable. But as you know, without absolute proof, any and all evidence is subjective to one's level of skepticism.

Yes, I'm sure the evidence all sounds very impressive to people who are already inclined to believe in the first place. I am not one of those people.

What you are not grasping is the fact that we are not talking about martyrs who died for what they thought to be true. We are talking about people dying for what they know to be false.

Let's say a man witnessed a gang member murder someone and told the witness that he would kill anyone (and their families) if they snitch. Despite the risk, the individual agrees to testify anyway. However, if it was a lie, the gang member being falsely accused would kill him and his family out of revenge of the wrongfull accusation. So why would the man risk his life and the lives of his family? The more reasonable explanation is because it was true and he wanted to ensure the murder is off the street. It would be unreasonable to assume that he just had some beef with the accuser and was willing to risk his life and the lives of his family for what he knew to be false.

So it would be reasonable to believe that the disciples who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection risked their lives for what they believed to be true. It would be unreasonable to believe that they were all delusional at the same time and it would be less reasonable to assume that they would all die for what they knew to be false.

Bold mine. This is exactly what I said - that their purported martyrdom proves only that they believed these things. Nothing else.

Which again, is granting the best possible case scenario for your argument, ignoring both the psychological naivete and the fact that we're likely not talking about 'martyrs' at all, in lieu of any meaningful historical evidence.

Also, your gang member story needs an extraordinary element, otherwise it isn't analogous. Again, I proportion my belief to the evidence given, with regard to the nature of the claim. So do you. So does everyone. The only difference is, I do it consistently.

I assume you believe in abiogenisis or spontaneous generation of life.

Which one? They're not the same thing.

I believe in abiogenesis, a scientific theory describing the gradual, incremental development of biological processes - cellular differentiation, morphogenesis, physiological traits, digestion, stimulus, reproduction etc...

'Spontaneous generation' - fully formed organisms magically popping into existence with all biological processes intact - is what you believe.

If there is no God, what other option do you have?

That's yet another false dichotomy. In fact, if you allow for magical 'explanations', the limits are only your imagination. But suppose I grant it.

Given the extremely crappy track record that 'god' characters have in meaningfully explaining anything whatsoever, I'll go with the naturalistic explanation.

Of course you can simply say "I don't know" as usual. However, you really have two options. Either organic matter was created by inorganic matter naturally or it did not.

Not 'created'. Developed from.

Yet there was no witnesses or any evidence to suggest the spontaneous generation of life. So in reality, to believe in spontaneous generation is a product of blind faith because there is no evidence or witnesses to make the assertion reasonable.

I agree. There is no evidence whatsoever for spontaneous generation.

Which again, is what you believe in. Not me.

For the life of me, I don't know why you guys think it's a good idea to be bringing up abiogenesis. You have a hard enough time maintaining your argument as it is without invoking scientific theories you've clearly never studied in any way, shape or form.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If 75% is not a consensus then I don't know what is

dm: OK, so be it. You apparently don't know what a consensus is. If 75% agree on something that is not a consensus.

Nevertheless it is a sizable majority.

ed: You are missing the point on this one, I am referring to their witness of the empty tomb. This is very strong evidence that the tomb was empty and that fact is obviously very important to the early Christians. This makes no sense if His resurrection was spiritual, then obviously there would be no empty tomb and its importance would be downplayed by the early Christians. Which is plainly NOT the case.

dm: And you are missing the point that Mark says they told nobody.

And you are missing the point that Paul says nothing of the women or an empty grave.

But of course, we know that they obviously did later tell others because as we know from the hymn that is over 20 years earlier than Mark that over 500 people saw him alive at one time.

dm: And you are missing the point that, if people report a grave is empty, that is in no way convincing evidence of a resurrection
Suppose somebody dies, you expect the body to be somewhere, and 3 days later you find it is not where you expected it. Do you proclaim then that a miracle happened? I think not. For you realize that bodily resurrections are rare (if they happen at all). So you would be far more inclined to think that you were mistaken on where the body was, or that somebody had moved it, or even that the person was never really dead but was only unconscious for a while. You would want far more evidence than "I can't find the body" to convince you of a bodily resurrection.

It is not totally convincing, that is true. But it is one large piece of multiple evidence lines. Very few people have survived crucifixions. And the tomb was a well known one among His earliest followers so very unlikely to have gone to the wrong one. And then of course you back to the ancient hymn that goes back to within 5 years of His resurrection, so that if He had not been resurrected would have been easily refuted by those that had seen His dead body, but they could not because His body was no longer in the tomb.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I just referenced several scholars that disagree with you.

dm: So what? Having a few scholars does not make you right. I have referenced scholars that disagree and have posted their arguments. My scholars can beat up your scholars. Their arguments can beat up your arguments. But you ignore the arguments, and hide behind those that agree with you

I didn't say it proves me right but it IS evidence against your position. Plus I noticed that you totally ignored all the evidence I provided from what Paul said in I Cor. 15:12-58. He would have said none of that if Christs resurrection was spiritual, it would make no sense. I will take that as an unable to refute.

dm: Galatians 1:7-8)

And yes, I know you say Gal 1:8 really means, "For I did receive it from man, and I was taught it," which is the exact opposite of what Paul says!

And as I explained to you before (and you ignored) Paul would never say that he did not receive his gospel from men, and then, when he summarizes the gospel, repeat verbatim what he memorized in a creed received from other people.

His main point was that the gospel is not a manmade idea or philosophy. He was not necessarily talking about how he himself received the gospel, but it is true that he did not directly receive the gospel from the apostles, he received it from the bodily resurrected Christ as shown in the book of Acts. The creed he quoted is part of the gospel but it is not the full gospel.

dm: Anyway, back to I Corinthians 15:3-11, there is a strong case that this was inserted later, which, again, you simply ignore.

Sigh.

I don't remember seeing you present any evidence for such a case. Re-present it and I will comment.

dm: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...city-of-jesus-a-community-discussion.7939658/ . If that is the topic you want to discuss, please join in with what I said there. Please don't make me hijack this thread and repeat that entire argument here. That has nothing to do with this thread.

No need to, I have already refuted it earlier in this thread.

dm: http://earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html .

Did you read his letter to the church in Corinth?

Ed: Sure, he had some information about the origins of the gospels.

dm: Papias? We don't even know what he wrote about the gospels, since we only have the words of Eusebius, who was notoriously unreliable, and claims that Papias wrote something 2 centuries earlier. Even if Eusebius is telling the truth, the portion he "quotes" from Papias in no way identifies the current gospels as being written by Matthew and Mark. The books Papias seems to be referring to are far different from the books of Matthew and Mark. And Eusebius credits Papias as only saying third hand what Papias supposedly learned from an evangelist who claimed to have known about the apostles of the previous century. Nowhere does Papias even claim to have saw the books. In fact, Papias even says that he didn't think he would get much benefit from books written about Jesus. You are on shaky ground indeed if this is your evidence..

No, there is evidence that Eusebius is often very accurate. Papias claimed to have spoken to John who told him that Mark was an interpreter of Peter and wrote down many things he said about his time with the Lord. Justin, Irenaeus, and Clement also all claimed this about the book of Mark. In addition, there is also internal textual evidence for Mark's authorship.

 

[Grafted In]

Merle, don't you have other hobbies you are neglecting?

 

[Hawkins]

Yes, of course. There is strong contemporary evidence that alexander conquered much of the world, or that Ceaser crossed the rubicon..

It makes not much difference from the claim the evidence shows that monkey existed long ago.

Can you put some details in, say, who credibly stood witnessing for Alexander? Provide a a name if you can.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

This has NOTHING to do with me wanting you to care. It has to do with logic.

Yes it makes a difference if a boy in said to be in Jesus tomb because you are contradicting scripture.
That you were considered a man before age eighteen back then has absolutely nothing to do with your gratuitously inserting a boy into Jesus tomb.

How are you still Christian? If you're so concerned with small details, why do you take no notice of the many contradictions in the Bible? Ever read Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7?

Too many manuscripts to what? To criticize? That is absurd! If the original was flawed they would have been on it like fur on a gorilla. As soon as they noticed the discrepancy, did thy object? You ignore the question because the answer is that there was no objection.

I already told you there were dozens of gospels that all contradicted one another. You blatantly ignore that and then accuse me of ignoring your points. Incredible.

God is definitely a God of progressive Revelation. It can be illustrated via the Messiah theme where first the prophecy occurs in Genesis 3:15. Gradually we are told that through Noah's son Shem the Messiah would arrive. Then via Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, then through the family of David until we finally arrive at Jesus. That spans thousands of years. He is not slow since to him, a thousand years is as one day as Peter points out

You ignore the point about daemons. Just like I predicted.

 

[Radrook]

How are you still Christian? If you're so concerned with small details, why do you take no notice of the many contradictions in the Bible? Ever read Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7?



I already told you there were dozens of gospels that all contradicted one another. You blatantly ignore that and then accuse me of ignoring your points. Incredible.



You ignore the point about daemons. Just like I predicted.

How am I still a Christian? Simple, I am still a Christian because I am more of a believer in the Word of God than I am in your personal biased opinion.

Also, please note that hose who read the Bible with the agenda of finding flaws will inevitable begin to perceive what appear to be flaws and contradictions. In fact, if they don't find them, then their vivid critical imaginations will begin to construct them in some way manner or form regardless of how unjustifiable such a constructions might actually be.

In the process, social, historical, cultural context will be ignored, immediate and entire biblical context will be declared irrelevant, Bible writers will be declared dishonest. Historical accounts will be tagged as myth or allegories and expert opinions declared as biased. Anything and everything that it takes to prove the Bible uninspired will be cunningly employed and absolutely no avenue for viable explanations will be allowed.

So an invitation to engage in a detailed give and take constitutes an invitation to futility.

Please note that as Christians we aren't assigned or commanded to force people to listen or accept. We are only told to explain and if thee is a decision to reject to move on. Jesus told us very clearly that his Sheep would hear his voice and would respond positively.

John 10:27 ►
New International Version
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.


Those who do not respond positively are likened to stubborn goats.


Matthew 25:31-46New International Version (NIV)
The Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.


So insisting with such persons would be tantamount to trying to grab the goat but the horns and force it to follow the beckoning shepherd-an arduous and futile task which we are simply not assigned to attempt.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

How am I still a Christian? Simple, I am still a Christian because I am more of a believer in the Word of God than I am in your personal biased opinion.

Also, please note that hose who read the Bible with the agenda of finding flaws will inevitable begin to perceive what appear to be flaws and contradictions. In fact, if they don't find them, then their vivid critical imaginations will begin to construct them in some way manner or form regardless of how unjustifiable such a constructions might actually be.

In the process, social, historical, cultural context will be ignored, immediate and entire biblical context will be declared irrelevant, Bible writers will be declared dishonest. Historical accounts will be tagged as myth or allegories and expert opinions declared as biased. Anything and everything that it takes to prove the Bible uninspired will be cunningly employed and absolutely no avenue for viable explanations will be allowed.

So an invitation to engage in a detailed give and take constitutes an invitation to futility.

Please note that as Christians we aren't assigned or commanded to force people to listen or accept. We are only told to explain and if thee is a decision to reject to move on. Jesus told us very clearly that his Sheep would hear his voice and would respond positively.

John 10:27 ►
New International Version
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.


Those who do not respond positively are likened to stubborn goats.


Matthew 25:31-46New International Version (NIV)
The Sheep and the Goats

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.


So insisting with such persons would be tantamount to trying to grab the goat but the horns and force it to follow the beckoning shepherd-an arduous and futile task which we are simply not assigned to attempt.

This is now quite a few times that you leave everything I've said unaddressed and instead address only your own assumptions. For your information, I was Christian when I read the entire Bible. That endeavor is why I'm now atheist. I was not trying to find flaws; it was quite the opposite. I'm simply an honest person who prefers truth to comfort. And if your next response is anything like the wastes of time I saw before, we're through.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

If you're so concerned with small details, why do you take no notice of the many contradictions in the Bible? Ever read Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7?

Have you ever had a chance to read any material explaining the difference?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In another thread it was claimed that there are multiple credible witnesses to the resurrection. I disagree. Basically we have the author of Mark, and he wrote many years after the supposed event. We don't even know who he was, and don't know what his intention was. Matthew, Luke and John come even later. They closely follow Mark's story, indeed they often just copy it, but diverge sharply on the resurrection. Paul writes earlier, but he appears to be talking about a spiritual resurrection. So no, I don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. If you think otherwise, who do you think was a credible witness to it?

Ok, Merle. So, you don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. Other than my possibly seeing Paul (and maybe Peter) as a candidate, I don't either. But, don't we need to establish at some point the nature of "credibility" as it pertains to a witness of any kind? Who gets to determine precisely what constitutes "credibility," and is there an absolute denotation of this concept to which we can all resort and by which we can then consider the attending connotations? To me, even the following legal conceptualization of "credibility" looks somewhat tenuous for the purpose of using it's definition as a measuring rod:

Credibility of Witnesses

Is there an absolute definition of "credibility"? I'm kind of thinking ... there's not, which makes it difficult for any one of us to bring some one else to the point of "crying uncle" when faced by the pressure of all of the 'evidences' that could be had, whether pro or con. To me, this applies as well to the evidences, or lack thereof, associated with the account of the Resurrection. So, personally, I don't worry about the "credibility of witnesses" very much as a major justification for Christian belief, whether that of my own or of someone else.

Rather, for me, the resurrection of Jesus makes sense as one little conceptual piece sitting within a larger, emergent set of--what seem to me to be--coherent elements, but I wouldn't predict that just because the resurrection makes sense to me that it would automatically make sense to my neighbor; I realize there's way too many cognitive factors at play in another person's perceptions of religion for me to assume that. On the other hand, neither do I expect that my non-believing neighbor, whoever she may be, would just assume that any ol' casual analysis of Christian 'evidences' obviously demonstrates a definite deficiency in the resurrection's plausibility.

Yeah, I'd say that I'm under the impression that it takes more than just my accessibility to some "credible witnesses" for me to believe ...

2PhiloVoid

 

[Hawkins]

Ok, Merle. So, you don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. Other than my possibly seeing Paul (and maybe Peter) as a candidate, I don't either. But, don't we need to establish at some point the nature of "credibility" as it pertains to a witness of any kind? Who gets to determine precisely what constitutes "credibility," and is there an absolute denotation of this concept to which we can all resort and by which we can then consider the attending connotations? To me, even the following legal conceptualization of "credibility" looks somewhat tenuous for the purpose of using it's definition as a measuring rod:

Credibility of Witnesses

Is there an absolute definition of "credibility"? I'm kind of thinking ... there's not, which makes it difficult for any one of us to bring some one else to the point of "crying uncle" when faced by the pressure of all of the 'evidences' that could be had, whether pro or con. To me, this applies as well to the evidences, or lack thereof, associated with the account of the Resurrection. So, personally, I don't worry about the "credibility of witnesses" so much as a major justification for Christian belief, whether of my own or of someone else.

Rather, for me, the resurrection of Jesus makes sense as one little conceptual piece sitting within a larger, emergent set of--what seem to me to be--coherent elements, but I wouldn't predict that just because the resurrection makes sense to me that it would automatically make sense to my neighbor; I realize there's way too many cognitive factors at play in another person's perceptions of religion for me to assume that. On the other hand, neither do I expect that my non-believing neighbor, whoever she may be, would just assume that any ol' casual analysis of Christian 'evidences' obviously demonstrates a definite deficiency in the resurrection's plausibility.

Yeah, I'd say that I'm under the impression that it takes more than just my accessibility to some "credible witnesses" for me to believe ...

2PhiloVoid

Can you list a piece of human history happened 2000 years ago which you can consider as credible?

My bet is that the confusion is not about how credible it is. It is about what have been recorded down. History recorded down are usually about scenarios you can comprehend. Supernatural encounters, even written in the same way, you question its credibility simply because its contents don't fall into your comprehension.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok, Merle. So, you don't see any credible witnesses to the resurrection. Other than my possibly seeing Paul (and maybe Peter) as a candidate, I don't either. But, don't we need to establish at some point the nature of "credibility" as it pertains to a witness of any kind? Who gets to determine precisely what constitutes "credibility," and is there an absolute denotation of this concept to which we can all resort and by which we can then consider the attending connotations? To me, even the following legal conceptualization of "credibility" looks somewhat tenuous for the purpose of using it's definition as a measuring rod:

Credibility of Witnesses

Is there an absolute definition of "credibility"? I'm kind of thinking ... there's not, which makes it difficult for any one of us to bring some one else to the point of "crying uncle" when faced by the pressure of all of the 'evidences' that could be had, whether pro or con. To me, this applies as well to the evidences, or lack thereof, associated with the account of the Resurrection. So, personally, I don't worry about the "credibility of witnesses" very much as a major justification for Christian belief, whether that of my own or of someone else.

Rather, for me, the resurrection of Jesus makes sense as one little conceptual piece sitting within a larger, emergent set of--what seem to me to be--coherent elements, but I wouldn't predict that just because the resurrection makes sense to me that it would automatically make sense to my neighbor; I realize there's way too many cognitive factors at play in another person's perceptions of religion for me to assume that. On the other hand, neither do I expect that my non-believing neighbor, whoever she may be, would just assume that any ol' casual analysis of Christian 'evidences' obviously demonstrates a definite deficiency in the resurrection's plausibility.

Yeah, I'd say that I'm under the impression that it takes more than just my accessibility to some "credible witnesses" for me to believe ...

2PhiloVoid

2PV spotted in this forum? Have I gone mad? Surely I'm seeing things that aren't there.

Can you list a piece of human history happened 2000 years ago which you can consider as credible?

My bet is that the confusion is not about how credible it is. It is about what have been recorded down. History recorded down are usually about scenarios you can comprehend. Supernatural encounters, even written in the same way, you question its credibility simply because its contents don't fall into your comprehension.

Exactly. It's not only an event lacking credible witnesses but it's an insanely unlikely event. If I told you I have a pet cat, would you believe me? Probably, but if not then I'd probably need to do little more than show you a picture.

But what if I told you I have a pet dragon? Would you believe that? Probably not, even if I had a photograph, toenail clippings and a stool sample.

So why should I believe someone who says there was a pet dragon 2000 years ago?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you list a piece of human history happened 2000 years ago which you can consider as credible?

My bet is that the confusion is not about how credible it is. It is about what have been recorded down. History recorded down are usually about scenarios you can comprehend. Supernatural encounters, even written in the same way, you question its credibility simply because its contents don't fall into your comprehension.

Brother Hawkins, the Christian Apologetics forum isn't really a place for fellow Christians to debate the finer points of this or that perspective. You'll just have to trust me that my purpose here is to defend a space for Christian belief and faith, but my doing so probably won't comport with the typical apologist's approach.

Peace,
2Philovoid