 Well, I took the announcement that our class is going to be starting 15 minutes earlier, and I got a lot of family coming over, so I will be cutting out of here at 12.15. You're welcome to stay, but I'm out of here because I've got to go help my wife get ready for our guests. So, happy Easter, he's risen, he's risen indeed, you know I went for a jog this morning in our neighborhood and I got to find out who the believers are. By saying he is risen and seeing who responds, and it was the family walking four dogs that responded, so, yeah, so, and asked them where they, they said, you guys have got four dogs, and they said, none of them are ours, they said, our children have all left the nests and they left the dogs with us, so they went from zero dogs to four dogs, so fortunately the dogs like one another, so that's good, so, well, I mean, I would say happy Easter, he is risen, and sometimes they would not say anything at all, sometimes they would say, well, happy Easter to you, but yeah, the one with the four dogs says he is risen indeed, so, amen to that, that's good, you know, Easter is a special time, I don't know of any other time where it's easier to present the gospel than an Easter, I know a lot of you like me are going to be spending time with friends and family, so I thought I'd give a little exercise this morning, and actually, if you were following my Facebook page about a week ago, I'd put up a post and it had a phenomenal response, which is basically just telling my story of how I'm frequently on a university campus, and we've got atheist science professors there who respond to the model, the creation model that we present, and every time we've done that, except for one, there's only one time it didn't happen, but the atheist science professors will say, Dr. Ross, can you name one or two scientific discoveries that would cause you to abandon your Christian faith? I say sure, if you can show me beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that the universe didn't have a beginning, that would be catastrophic to my Christian faith, and if you can show me that the origin of life has a strictly naturalistic explanation, that would at least be corrosive to my Christian faith, if not catastrophic. Another one that would be catastrophic, if you can prove to me scientifically that we humans are no different than the animals, that would be catastrophic to my Christian faith, and I said if you can show me all the evidence for fine tuning that I've given you in this past half hour, that all of that goes away after more scientific investigation, that would be corrosive to my Christian faith, if not catastrophic. But I said here's the big one, if you could prove to me scientifically or historically that Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead, that would be the ultimate. Do that and it's over. Now, whenever that happens, I take the opportunity after disclosing these are things that would be catastrophic to my Christian worldview. I would say, sir, can you name some scientific discoveries that would cause you to abandon your atheistic worldview and receive Jesus Christ as Crater Lord and Savior? And every time I've done that, I met with silence. I says well surely you can name one, and the reason why I give you the ones I just did, the reverse works. Okay? If I can show you, sir, that beyond any reasonable shadow doubt universe really did at the beginning, doesn't that imply that your atheistic worldview is incorrect? There's got to be a Crater to explain the existence of the universe. Or if I'm able to show you scientifically that we humans are distinct from the animals, that we have exceptional qualities that are not shared by any other animals in the face of the earth, wouldn't that destroy your physicalist worldview? Or if I could show you that consciousness has no naturalistic explanation or the origin of life, I said, wouldn't that be catastrophic? Or if I can show you that Jesus really did rise bodily from the dead. Now, sometimes I've done that. They'll say, well, you know, if you can actually pin that one down for me, that would make a difference. And that's exactly what it tells us in 1 Corinthians 15. Let me read you the text. It says, if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless. And so is your faith. More than that, we're then found to be false witnesses above God, for we have testified above God that he was raised, that he, in fact, was dead, pardon me. But if he did not raise him, sorry, I'm getting this wrong. Let me go back. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses above God, for we have testified above God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if, in fact, the dead are not raised. And if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you're still in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we're to be pitied among all men. And sometimes I read that when I'm in a university setting saying, notice the Bible puts that test out there. If there is no solid evidence for the resurrection, our Christian faith is useless. That frequently comes as a shock to people. And sometimes I'll use this with my friends at Easter, just read them this text. And they're stunned to discover the Bible itself is saying, evidence counts. If the evidence is not there, our faith is useless. Look at the evidence and see. Okay, now, if you flip the page back to the beginning of first Corinthians 15, it gives you some evidence that Jesus, indeed, has been raised bodily from the dead. Don't turn there. But notice the Paul actually gave the evidence first, then he raises the issue. Okay. This being Easter, you've got friends who are not yet followers of Jesus Christ. How can you share with them? And Ross, I heard you mentioned Gary Habermas in the class just before this with joint heirs. I've known Gary for 15, 20 years. He's actually coming out with a 3000 page book, actually it's going to be 10 books, 300 pages each. But 3000 pages on the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the dead. He says, I've written a book before there was 300 pages, but I didn't cover all the evidence. So now a publisher has given me an opportunity to actually publish all the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the dead, all 3000 pages worth. So that tells you there must be a strong case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus and the dead. But I'm going to turn the tables on you. You meet someone three hours from now, and they ask you, okay, what is this evidence that Jesus rose bodily from the dead? Is it incontrovertible? Could I actually make a case that he didn't rise bodily from the dead? What would you say? Okay, any hands? All right. You read the first part of 1 Corinthians 15. That's exactly what Paul says before he gets his passage started in verse 20. He says, there are 500 eyewitnesses to the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He says, some of those 500 eyewitnesses are here. So you actually go talk to them. Now, you're a skeptic. You say, well, 500 eyewitnesses, when was this book written? You know, 1900 years ago? How do I know this is credible? What's your response? Because eyewitness testimony is considered to be strong under certain conditions. Okay? Let's see the point that he's making. 19th centuries indeed have gone by. I don't know any of those 500 eyewitnesses, but notice the testimony of those eyewitnesses has not been refuted over 1900 years. No scholars come forward to refute any of that testimony. And Paul wrote this at a time when people could actually meet the eyewitnesses. He didn't put it into writing 200 years later. He put it into writing at the time that those eyewitnesses were there. Yes. What I've always thought, I mean, you know, human nature hasn't changed in 1900 years. And these people were persecuted, many of them. And you know, to understand the culture of the time to be thrown out of the synagogue wasn't like we can understand. I mean, at that point, you lost all all economic commerce. You lost all relationship. Basically, we're putting up, you know, dungeon of sorts. And so these people did all this after this experience, which to me is always been a bit of direct evidence. Yeah, it's not just that they died for their faith. In spite of, you know, great persecution, you're right. They got kicked out of the synagogue. Somewhat similar to say, if you're a practicing Mormon, and you get excommunicated, they take your spouse away, they take your children away, they take your job away. All your friends are cut off. You literally lose everything. It was like that in the first century for a Jew. They got kicked out of the synagogue. No one else would have contact with them. Their livelihood was gone. Right. Yeah. So getting kicked out was a big thing. And they said, fine. I know my Lord has risen. Okay, this side of the class. Yes. Yeah. This is also depend upon how much you how much you can trust the actual and so in that regard, you know, I think that I can't state specifically, but New Testament is probably as copied and made back through time. That's more than any other book available. So it becomes so if they raise the question, well, how can you trust the scriptures? I mean, you then have to have that evidence that hey, this scripture is the most reliable book the way now. Most documented book. Yeah. How many have ever been exposed to the Punic Wars? I mean, you know what the Punic Wars are. Okay. Alright. You know, that's, you know, Hannibal and the Romans fighting the Punic Wars. Yeah, okay. We got five manuscripts of the Punic Wars. The earliest manuscript we have a ninth century AD. And yet we consider the testimony of those manuscripts to be reliable because we got five manuscripts. And the five manuscripts remarkably agree. Can anybody know what kind of testimony evidence we have for the New Testament? How many manuscripts do we have? And how early do they date? Yeah. Well, 30 years ago, the story was that we had 16,000 manuscripts of the New Testament that go back to the third and fourth century AD. That number is now doubled. So that's how many new manuscripts that they have found. That does not include the fragments. Okay, the earliest fragments go back to about 56 to 60 AD. They're small. With John, we got some that are like a whole page that go back to the 90s AD. And so again, Punic Wars are considered reliable, even though you got what, you know, 12, 13 centuries between the earliest manuscripts in the event, you only got five manuscripts. In the case of the New Testament, we got tens of thousands going back to the third, fourth and fifth century AD with fragments going back to the time of the actual eyewitnesses. And yeah, remarkable agreement. You'll one scholar I know that studied this says, when you compare all these manuscripts, there are 40 words that are in dispute in terms of the differences amongst the manuscripts. And none of those 40 words impact a single doctrine of the New Testament. Yeah, yeah, there's three manuscripts of Matthew that are in the 50s between 50 and 60. And yeah, I mean, the problem with carbon 14 dating is that to get a really accurate date, you got to consume a significant part of the sample. And when you only got a fragment this big, it's hard to get a really precise date. Yeah, I mean, yeah, so it's actually written at the time of the eyewitnesses and the I mean, what was recorded in Matthew was false, or Mark was false, or John was false, people would have said, Hey, that's not right. I mean, that happens. And do we see anything? I mean, that's the other big testimony is you actually had historians who are Romans and Jews, who are against the Christian faith. And basically, they were not able to refute the claims in the New Testament. Yeah, no counter to it. Now there are people saying it didn't happen. I mean, you got Josephus saying, there are people who say that this man rose bodily from the dead. He's not endorsing it. But there's nothing in his writing that refutes anything. And likewise with Tacitus, the Roman historian. Right. Yeah. Okay, here and then I go back to here and over to here. Yeah. This is great. I'm glad you guys are jumping in on this. Yeah. Do you know if was there anything in the apocryphal writings that that were not included that did say that? Have you ever heard that? No, no, no, no, it's kind of the strength of the apocryphal writings is that they don't criticize what is or that right? Yeah. Okay, talk about Shane of Evidence and critiquing in Acts chapter four, where told that the Sadducees came to the temple guards complaining that John Peter were preaching the resurrected Christ. And in verse three, we're told that 5,000 people were told probably a chance for somebody to critique among 5,000. And for several years afterwards, among 5,000, there was a young one that would have critiqued manuscripts. So that's a good start for Shane of Evidence. Very good start. They estimate that the population Jerusalem at that time was 30 to 35,000 people. And that within a half year, 15,000 of them became followers of Jesus Christ. So to get those kinds of numbers that quickly, that gives credence to the empty tomb. Basically, the disciples could say, Hey, if you don't believe us, go check out the tomb. So they could go over there and check it out. And they could hear the stories. Yeah, sure. That Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to see us here. And Harry Hevermes says that even among critical scholars, scholars who are not believers, they believe that that creed was circulating among believers. Some of them believe one to two years, others believe within months or even weeks after Jesus. No, it's correct. I actually got to hear Gary give a lecture just on that one point. And what he did is he took us through the New Testament, and showed us all the credal statements. It's not just some Paul's writings, you see it in John's writings as well. And so if you look at all these creeds, and realize that most people at that time were not literate. And so what was happening is that the disciples were actually giving them these verbal creeds that they could easily memorize. And yet the fact that there's so many of these short credal statements that you see in the New Testament indicates that this had to go back very early. As he argues, probably within less than six months of the actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead, you got these credal statements in place. And so he actually says that's even stronger than the carbon 14 evidence on how early some of these manuscripts are. When will this book? Well, he's going to bring them out the volumes kind of one at a time. And Gary Habermas, he he's the world's leading expert on the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. He frequently debates. The last name is h a b e r m a s. You can Google him. But yeah, and if you want, you can go on YouTube and watch several of his debates he's had with atheist Bible scholars. They don't throw up. Well, they basically concede his points. So even though they don't believe in the resurrection, he says, you know, it's people who are not historians who will try to deny the resurrection. This is even the non believers who historians basically say, I got to grant you that. And so you can actually watch the debates quite revealing. We have to thank the Jesus seminar for this wonderful thing they did because it brought forth J.T. Marlin and Habermas and all the other guys who responded to their arguments, which were weak, but things like this. Well, what's interesting just talking to Gary says is the best of the non believing historical scholars that have actually agreed to do public debates. And you know, there are people with doctorates who've written on this and he says, they concede the points. So even though they're non believers in the back, how would people of the first century have written and published and preserved contrary accounts? So for example, today, if there is somebody said, well, this guy rose from the dead, you have the internet, you have rapidly produced publications, etc. So there would be very quick counter evidence, or at least contrary claims. So what we say that we have these documents that proclaim the truth. And there's no contrary no contrary evidence of it. But how would they have created this contrary evidence and would they have wanted to? So that would be one of the things that I'd be interested in knowing because a good atheist would argue, look, you know, your claims are interesting, and on their face they make sense. But if I were back then and I wanted to dispute that, I wouldn't write any documents because I wouldn't need to. So there wouldn't be any to speak to that. Well, this is the whole point. The strategy of the leaders of scholars who are not believers in Jesus Christ was basically ignored. They made no attempt to refute it. The only refutation you see are the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead that dates back to that era is the one you find in the Bible. The Bible records the only refutation that came out at that time. So you see nothing in the writings of the Romans, or the the Jewish hierarchy, publishing the refutation, the only account we got is actually in Scripture. And you all know what that is. What is the refutation that we see record in the Scripture? Yeah, that that's the cycle stole the body. That was the only attempted refutation of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead that is in print that we have to this day. Everything else. There's yeah, very similar to saying there was a sighting of the unicorn, you know, what never happened. So why would I publish it? corn? I saw a couple of days ago. Well, what do people saw? So how would why would people do it? Well, why would you see this to it? If it never happened? Well, let me give you an analogy, I think works. Okay, lots of people claim to have seen UFOs. In fact, so many tens of millions of people that people have actually written books, refuting a lot of their claims. We're talking to unicorn. How many people actually claim to see unicorns out of that are sober? Okay, they're very few. So you know, why bother writing a refutation about unicorns, even the guy who got drunk and saw doesn't believe it. But the problem is, you've got this huge population of people who seriously do think that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. So again, using the analogy of UFOs today, if you got a lot of serious people claiming this, that yeah, it's going to motivate scholars to write a refutation. But if you haven't got a case, your best strategy is to ignore it. And so this is evidence that the Romans didn't have a case, the Jewish leaders didn't have a case. All that came out was what we see in scripture. Oh, they Jewish leaders spread the story that the disciples stole the body. Now, the fact that it stopped right there tells you that's not a very credible claim. Okay, why is that not a credible claim? That is what the consequences would have been a reality of moment. They had their lives to lose. They were professional soldiers, etc, etc. So it's just not plausible that the disciples could have stolen the body, even if they had attempted it. Yeah, and this is actually a point that's conceded by leading non theistic scholars. Is it this idea that the disciples stole a body has no credibility? And some of the reason, by the way, this isn't coming from Christian scholars, it's coming from non Christian scholars. They make the point that the text makes it clear that when Jesus was arrested, and when he was crucified, what happened the Jewish leaders went to Pilate and said, we want the tomb guarded. We want to protect it with a Roman seal, which means his goodness to a two ton boulder was rolled across it was a Roman seal. And they said, we want to protect the cohort of Roman soldiers to protect the seal. And that has legal consequences. Incidentally, a cohort numbers anywhere from 16 to 200 Roman soldiers. And a guard cohort is trained for two years to protect nine square yards around the soldier against all odds. So that's the kind of guards that happen. And what non Christian scholars point out, it's simply not credible that 11 men without military training, without military equipment could overcome a cohort of Roman soldiers. And you're right. If you're a guard soldier, the penalty for allowing the Roman seal to be broken is the same thing if you fall asleep or allowed the seal to be broken. The penalty is that you'll be crucified upside down. Well, he did, but he wasn't the first. I mean, you can actually go back, you know, a couple of centuries and see this. In fact, probably one of the more famous stories, this goes back to the mid 19th century. It was three British lawyers decided to put on trial the case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead. And they wound up writing a book on it. These are not believers. And basically said, after studying this for a couple of years, we've come to the conclusion that the historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead is stronger than the historical evidence for the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo. Now, keep in mind, this is written in the mid 19th century, which means you got soldiers that were at Waterloo that were alive, lots of them at the time that these three British lawyers have put this into print. And incidentally, this is what brought all three of them to faith in Jesus Christ. So they start off as skeptics, what the goal to prove that the resurrection didn't happen. And one of concluding, the historical evidence is actually stronger than the defeat. It's cited by several scholars. I don't know it off the top of my head. But yeah, you can look it up. And yeah, it's still available. So and you you can ask skeptics, how many of you think that Napoleon was not defeated at Waterloo? I mean, today in the 21st century, it's long gone happened. But yeah, I don't think you're going to find a rational person saying it didn't happen. Yes, it's hard. It's hard to picture a guy like Peter, who that night was accused by a girl about 15 of being in Galilee and he ran off scared to death from her. The two days later, he was going to take on a woman in Jerusalem and steal the body. Yeah. So those types of things are in those records all through it. Yeah. Well, the point is no scholar Christian or non Christians, given credibility, the idea that the disciples stole the body and notice that the Jewish leaders dropped it. I mean, that's the first story they come out with, but they they didn't push it. And one other thing is the silence of the Talmud for people who have a vested interest in the subject is definitely so. Well, also note this, you'll see this in the book of John, the Gospel of John. You know, the women, they're the first ones to see the resurrected Christ. And then you got Peter and John coming to the empty tomb. And it says they saw the great clothes. So now I've actually read carefully what you see in the Gospels. Jesus was given a rich man's burial. And it said that he was clothed in linen. So you had a burial clock of linen and pressed into that linen was a talent's worth of rosin. Okay, minimum weight of a talent is 75 pounds. Okay, and this rosin would set in the linen, kind of like fiberglass. Any of you ever worked with fiberglass? That's how you make fiberglass. You basically take linen or some kind of artificial material is like linen, and you keep pressing in this rosin. And what do you get? You get a fiberglass material. Okay, if you're talking 75 pounds worth, that means you got about a three inch hard coating all around the body of Jesus, up to the neck point. And then there'd be a head cloth put in. Basically what the disciples saw because what does the text say? They walked into the tomb, they saw the grave clothes, and immediately they believed in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Basically what they were seeing was an empty bottle, and a collapsed headpiece. And the bottle wasn't broken. No cut or slit. Okay, but that convinced you the rosebolly from the dead. If you saw the equivalent of a fiberglass body piece right up to the neck with a small enclosure, then a headpiece, and nothing is broken. Yeah, they immediately believed one look. Well, if you're going to steal a body, you better have a saw to cut through all that fiberglass and split it open and get the body out. Notice what the text says one glance immediately believed. Okay, yeah, go ahead. How could they what? Right? Yeah, the text doesn't tell us that the women knew how his body had been prepared. But likewise, the angel meets them and says, your mission is not necessary. So yeah, I mean, in the Gospel accounts, incidentally, skeptics, by the way, go through the Gospel accounts and say, Hey, pieces are missing. And you know, why would pieces be missing? We don't see the complete story here. That gives it credibility. I mean, you know, that there's collusion, when all the witnesses tell the identical story, and the story is complete without holes. That happens in trials all the time. If the multiple witnesses come forward with all the same story, and it's a complete story, you know, they colluded in advance. And so you know that you can't trust the testimony, you look for differences, you look for things that are left out, and you can piece it all together into one credible story, you know, the testimony is true. You know, I've done events for trial lawyers, they tell me that's how we can figure out whether the testimony is true or not. And so if you look at the Bible, it reads just like the tests we have for true testimony. And incidentally, that's brought out in this book by these three British lawyers. They said we examined the testimony of the four Gospels the same way we evaluate testimony in a court of law. And so this meets all the criteria for being a true testimony. Okay, in the back then I'll come back to you. Can you speak up so we can go here? Yeah. Well, this is the problem with Jews, we've had some Jews attend the class year over the years. And you know, one of the big Yeah, you couldn't prove their genealogy. Yeah, and what's interesting, I mean, I think what the Seder service, and I know the way Dave does it, is that you have an empty chair for Elijah. Why? Because Jews believe that Elijah comes twice. And often what I've been sharing with Jews is, you believe Elijah comes twice. Why can't God come twice? If Elijah can come twice, why can't God come twice? But that's the big difference. They say, we believe the Messiah comes once and fulfills all 300 plus prophecies and one coming. Well, why can't you fulfill one third and one coming in two thirds and the next coming? If Elijah can pull it off, why can't he pull it off? And yeah, there was a Jew here in the class that was a key step for him giving his life to Christ. But what he told me was I couldn't convince any of my rabbis. But he was convinced. Yes. Then back to you. Yeah, go ahead. What you just told us about this risen material, where is that in the Bible? What verse are you? Where did you get that information? That says a talent of rosin was pressed into the linen cloth on his body. I think it's, I think it's in the Gospel of John. It's in one of the Gospels. It was a very wealthy man. Right. Right. Yeah. He had the wealth to bury him properly. And so he would have been buried that way because it was wealthy. Yeah, he had a rich man's burial. But yeah, one of the Gospels, I'm pretty sure it's John, someone look it up for me, actually mentions that a talent's weight of rosin was pressed into his burial cloth. Well, okay, that raises another issue. Because what the New Testament tells us is he was going to be dead for three days and three nights. And yet when we celebrate Easter, we got Good Friday and Sunday morning. That's not 72 hours. Well, no, here's here's how you resolve it. He was crucified during Passover week. During Passover week, you got between two and three different Sabbaths. So you can have a Sabbath on Thursday and a Sabbath on Saturday, and hence you can get the 72 hours. In fact, that's those scholars who tried to determine the precise date of when he was crucified. Look on the calendar to see where you got a Sabbath on a Thursday, and a Sabbath on a Saturday. The problem is you get several options. And yeah, it's not easy to get accurate calendars back that far. Again, I'll come back to you. Go ahead. Jesus, and is it strong enough evidence to stand up in a court of law? Right? Well, you're right that Simon Greenleath did write about this in the 19th century. And you'll also write many lawyers who weren't believers have put this to a courtroom test. And all of them come out saying the evidence for the bombing resurrection of Jesus when the dead is a sound. One more piece I can share with you. Notice what the text says. The curtain was rent. Okay, from top to bottom, it was rent. Okay, that was the curtain dividing the holy place from the holy of holy place. And it has symbolic significance. That curtain basically tells you the way to God is blocked because of your sin. And that curtain was there to communicate to people, your sin is a barrier until that sin is taken care, you cannot enter into holy of holies. But when we celebrate communion, as it explains in the Gospel of John, the bread that we take symbolizes the fact that we now have access to God, the father, the curtain is rent, we can go straight to God, the father, question for all of you, the wine that we drink, what does that symbolize the blood of Jesus? And John six tells us what the blood of Jesus symbolizes. Okay, okay, the bread means we can come right to the presence of the father. What does the wine symbolize? Okay, you can read John six, what it tells us is, when you take that wine, it symbolizes the fact that not only can you come directly into the presence of the father, and your sin no longer is a barrier having relationship with him, the blood symbolizes that he will give you power to live the Christian life. So that's what communion really means. The barrier has been broken, you can come to the presence of the father, and the father will give you the power to live the Christian life, there's power in the blood ever heard that song? Well, basically it's a communion song, making that point. But here's something about the curtain because I'm running out of time. The curtain that existed the time of the time that Christ lived in the temple, the rebuilt temple, it was four inches thick. Okay, and was about 20 feet tall. So you got this incredibly heavy curtain, 20 feet by 20 feet, four inches thick. And when Jesus died in the cross, what happened? It tore from top to bottom. And suddenly, there was no longer a barrier. I don't think so. Well, basically, if the curtain is rent, you don't need the temple. Exactly. Christ has already fulfilled what the temple symbolizes. Right. But can you imagine the impact on the priests? When you got this curtain, four inches thick, you get an earthquake, and it's rent from top to bottom. And suddenly, it's clear, you got a clear view into the Holy of Holies. How do you think that impacted them? How do you think it impacted all the Jews living in the city of Jerusalem? I think this is one reason you get 15,000 converts within six months. Well, they were, you know, pass over, you got Jews coming from all over the Roman Empire, and beyond. Right. So, but yeah, I mean, they could only see the empty tomb, they could also hear the news of the curtain being rent. Yes. Okay, this side. Yeah. Yeah, you've had your hand up, sorry, but go ahead. Yeah, go ahead, then I'll come back to you. People, I mean, Gary Habermas, $20 is an evidence. Basically, kind of a question here, but okay. But most of our really, the evidence is in the New Testament. Seems like is everything else in just examining that and showing that this evidence is true? Or is there a new, actually new evidence that's being collected? Well, when the lawyers put this on trial, and some of them have is that it's not just the New Testament. I said, there is such, you know, how do we tell whether someone's innocent or guilty? There is no reasonable alternative to the conclusion we're drawing from the evidence. And so kind of where the lawyers went, they said, look at the alternatives. The idea that Jesus, the disciples stole the body has no historical credibility. That's gone. Okay, the Romans stealing the body, that is no credibility. If they had the body, they would produce it and put an end to the Christian faith. The Jewish leaders stole the body. Well, they stole the body being enemies of the Christian faith, they would have produced the body and said, hey, you're all wrong. So they're basically saying there is no reasonable historical alternative to the actual account we see in the New Testament. I mean, they say, think of a scenario. And you'll see this done in Gary Habermas's work, he looks at about 13 different scenarios. You know, things like, well, maybe he didn't really die. Well, the Romans were pretty good at making sure that people they crucified actually died. And what do you see in the Gospel of John? One of the soldiers took a spear and put it through the body of Jesus in the torso. And what does the text say? Out of that wound came blood and water separated. Sure sign of death. Okay, in fact, a guy on our board of directors, Alex Metherall, he's a medical doctor, and an act of physicists as well. He's got a wonderful DVD you can see on our website, where he says a medical doctor looking at the crucifixion, and basically makes a point. There is no doubt about the fact that he really did die. What's the water the very cardio fusion? That's it. Yeah, I mean, if the fluid in your heart is separated into the blood and water, you're dead. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, there's no way your body can function at that point. And it was actually a test. That's how the Romans because he died quite quickly on the cross. Let's make sure he's really dead. So they put a spear through into his heart, and okay, this water and the blood separate. And this is Yep, he's dead. So they took him down from the cross. But the positive evidence of the of the resurrection positive evidence is really the Bible. All these other things, they're just negative arguments. They're not, I mean, they're, they're saying why couldn't be true with actual positive evidence of this happening. That that only comes from the Bible. Well, it's the Bible. It's the eyewitnesses. It's the number of converts. Yeah. Okay, but notice, there's no reputations. Now you can see, maybe there are no historians around there are plenty of historians around. And so and particularly when you read Josephus and Tacitus, both of them were much opposed to the Christian faith. And yet they basically back up what the New Testament said. So the lack of reputation that that's very effective. Because you know, this isn't a minor incident. Like the one you said, I saw a unicorn. Well, one guy claims to see a unicorn. Okay, he must have too much to drink. But now you're looking at a half of a city becoming followers of Jesus Christ within a six months span. This is not a minor incident. And therefore the opponents of the Christian faith, if they had anything, they would have written something about it. Okay, I'm going to give you the last word. Go ahead. Okay, I got 30 seconds to answer that one. Okay. You'll see stuff I've written about the shroud of Turin in my book, a matter of days, also some stuff I see on the web. I don't have enough time to give a complete answer to your question. But to tell you, you've got Christian scholars on both sides, saying it has no credibility. It does have credibility. It could be resolved with a better carbon 1314 date. They've not all given permission to perform a better test. So it's still quote in doubt. But the skeptics do have a point is that the carbon 14 date we have right now indicates 13 century AD. And that was a time when there was a roaring business on artifacts of Christ. It's the same century that they sold 16 tons of wood from the cross of Jesus. And they were selling instruments that he drank from. So that's why he needed help driving driving that cross. Yeah, real quick. Is it as easy to dismiss the shroud of Turin as any other demonstrable fraud? Well, here's the point that scholars have pointed out. The evidence for the Bali resurrection of Jesus in the dead is so strong that the shroud is basically superfluous. I get that. Yeah, but it's still something that's in history that we weren't ever talking about. She brought it up. Yeah, the town is easy to demonstrate that that's a fraud, as every other demonstrable fraud, it is all you need to do is to get a really accurate carbon 14 date and different parts of the sample of the shroud. It's highly contaminated. It's been fired. It's been handed by a gazillion people. So it's highly contaminated. So I don't think we'll ever get a good date. It's highly contaminated. I looked into it. It's just it's so contaminated. Yeah. Well, I mean, what the people are in favor of basically saying is we only gave him four square inches from the shroud, and it's from the wrong part of the shroud. All the way to shut them up and say, you get to pick where you want to take it out of the shroud, get a big piece, get several pieces will carbon date them all, and we'll see whether or not this is really credible. That would settle it once and for all, I would think, but that's not been done. But if what they were saying is, maybe that would be the best way to go. No, but if you take eight different samples, and take big pieces, that would eliminate some of the contaminants that would eliminate some of the and you know, they all come up 13th century, then you know, hey, this isn't real. So okay, I got to pray and then I got to leave. Thank you. I have one brief announcement. So you pray and leave. Okay, good. Father in heaven, we thank you for this day. We thank you the day to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. And Father, we know we're going to have many opportunities throughout this day. And Easter Monday, tomorrow, and Father, I pray that you would give each of us an opportunity to declare the evidence that yes, our savior has risen bodily from the dead. And because he's risen bodily from the dead, we can be confident that we too will be raised bodily from the dead, given that we committed our lives to Jesus Christ. Thank you, Lord, that this life isn't all there is. All of us are going to live beyond the grave. And Father, I pray that we would encourage our friends and relatives to choose the right place to spend the rest of eternity in Jesus name. Amen.