This saved my Christian faith and it can save yours

Apologetics — rigorously engaging the hard questions of the Christian faith — saved Winger's own faith when he was seriously doubting in his 20s. His guest Jonathan Mclatchie makes the case for a "maximal data argument" for the resurrection, as opposed to the more common "minimal facts" approach, arguing it is more compelling because it involves far more lines of evidence.

Introduction: apologetics as faith-saving; maximal vs. minimal facts approach to the resurrection

The maximal data argument for the resurrection has two steps: (1) establish that the gospel and Acts accounts represent genuine eyewitness testimony, then (2) evaluate what best explains the content of those claims. The apostles voluntarily suffered imprisonment, persecution, and death for their testimony — making the conspiracy/lying hypothesis highly implausible (William Paley, 1794).

The maximal data argument: apostolic suffering establishes sincerity; conspiracy hypothesis fails

David Hume's objection — that miracles are by definition the least plausible explanation because they go against uniform experience — is circular: it uses the rarity of miracles to discount all testimony to miracles, then cites the lack of accepted testimony to miracles as proof they don't happen. Paley's response: if God raises Jesus specifically to vindicate his messianic claim, we would not expect that resurrection to be a repeatable event — so non-repetition is not evidence against it.

Hume's objection to miracles and Paley's response; the circularity in Hume's argument

The Christological trilemma (Lord, Liar, or Lunatic — associated with C.S. Lewis, likely originating with G.K. Chesterton) is built on the historical evidence that Jesus made both messianic and divine identity claims. He cannot have been lying — he made his violent death by the very authorities whose power he claimed to supersede a core part of his mission, which an impostor would never do. Mark 8's double rebuke (Peter rebukes Jesus; Jesus rebukes Peter as "Satan") shows this is not a later invention.

The Christological trilemma: Jesus's self-claims were not those of a liar or madman

The "undesigned coincidence" between Mark and John on the temple statement: Mark records the false witnesses misquoting Jesus about destroying and rebuilding the temple, but never explains the original statement. John 2:19-21 records the original statement and clarifies it referred to his body. Neither account is copied from the other; they lock together in a way that supports the historicity of both.

Undesigned coincidence: Mark and John on the temple statement lock together to support historicity