On our main IP channel I will be having a video coming out soon on the Shema. Specifically, muslims, jews, unitarians, etc. in general like to cherry pick deut. 6:4 as an anti-Trinitarian argument. They'll say things like "The Shema clearly states the Lord is ONE not THREE". In the spirit the video coming out soon. I wanted to see what you guys think of this objection. How would you about this?

Hey guys, I heard on the last call that there were concerns about some mythicists called Christ before Jesus. All of their arguments in the book are the standard mythicist arguments save for their stylometry. Believe it or not, I worked with a statistician and together we reached out to the authors to get their code, the raw data, etc. that they used to run the tests. Unfortunately, the authors were not forthcoming to us, and it was fairly difficult to get them to give us their material so we can test and see if we can duplicate their results. That being said, below I review of the stylometry that Jason Wilson (the statistician I worked with) and I put out. You can also find this on their Amazon page for the book under the reviews. If you guys want this converted into a video to help others let me know. THE REVIEW- The purpose of this review is to provide a response to the stylometric analysis of chs. 7-8 of Christ Before Jesus by Matthew Britt & Jaaron Wingo. The reason for focusing exclusively on chs. 7-8 is they form the central supporting evidence of the book’s thesis that the biblical Jesus never existed. I will point out problems with the stylometric method employed that are substantial enough to invalidate their analysis, and therefore the primary support for their conclusion. Britt & Wingo state their thesis very plainly on pp. 1-2, "Evidence shows that Jesus, as presented by the Gospels and New Testament books, never existed. Despite Christianity’s claim of Jesus living during the first three decades of the first century CE, the character was actually a second-century construction." "Christianity, being defined as the belief in Jesus is both the Jewish god Yahweh and a historical human who was crucified and resurrected, did not emerge until the second century. It evolved from earlier Jewish and Greco-Roman cults, and developed the narratives for its books from previous works. The stories of a first – century Jesus movement, his disciples, and Paul are all part of a “creation myth” from the second century when the religion began to come together."

@Tim Howard is coming to my place this weekend. And we’re recording the first installments of the new foundations course. Once those are edited. Part 1 of 3 (that’s right foundations will have 3 parts!) will be released! As a reminder, we’re also in the works on more mastery level courses for you guys too. I’m currently reviewing courses that I built with 2 scholars so far. More details coming soon on that! Thank you for your patience and for trusting us with your journey guys. I am looking forward to learning how we can improve and learning how to better serve you in the coming months!

Dr. Ryan Mullins and I got off a call yesterday and he said he sees what we’re building out as the future of apologetics training. Something that will replace the expensive institutions, and will give people something they desperately need that the academic institutions never gave them. Ryan is not the first scholar to say this to me. He is the 5th. I am so proud of what we are building, and I am so excited to see your guys’ feedback as it comes along. YOU are going to be part of this as well. In the coming weeks as the foundations class gets launched, YOU will have a concrete affect on how things get shaped and how we get to help people in the future. Thank you for trusting us and being patient with us as we rebuild. And thank you for choosing to be part of this. In Christ, Than

Wanted to share a "win" moment that happened this week. As background, I've been engaging in evangelism/outreach/apologetics online in a game known as VRChat for over 4 years now. If you know, you know. If not, well, think of it as a pocket of condensed internet culture combined with never ending debauchery and the worst of human inclinations. A place that desperately needs Jesus. But who doesn't desperately need Jesus? Regardless, I attended my first ever Wednesday live-session on Objection Handling this week. It happened to include a special appearance from Big Jon Steel. Not only was it super educational and helpful, but Tim mentioned a principle on engaging others that stuck with me. It was how we shouldn't allow ourselves to be derailed by questions when it's the other person's burden to substantiate their argument. Seeing it played out in practice and the various strategies to stay focused was super helpful. Cue the very next night, when I'm world hopping and come across a deconstructionist who hosts his very own "anti-Bible studies" and creates video content on the matter. We end up engaging and the conversation quickly becomes about Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (stoning a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night). To avoid bloating this post with details, I essentially present the position that the law is not meant to be read as a code or strict, explicit rules but functions more as a legal treatise full of judicial wisdom. He pushed back with classic responses as "nuh uh" and "you're adding to the Bible", and then waved his flag of moral outrage that this is an unjust and disproportional law. I asked him to substantiate his conclusion that this was morally wrong, because all he was doing up to that point was making the assertion that it's immoral and wrong and asking us to just accept it. And it happened. He agreed to demonstrate how he came to that conclusion. I kid you not, the very next words to immediately come out of his mouth were: "Do YOU think this is ok?" It felt surreal that I was already being given the opportunity to practice one of the key principles I had learned the night before! I simply stood my ground, refused to answer, and emphasized that what I think has no bearing on how he reasons to his conclusion. He pushed back in all kinds of ways, like saying that I was "running" because I was afraid to answer. I stayed firm, and that created a turning point in the conversation.