The Best Way to Argue for the Resurrection (IMO)

本站添加: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]Hey everybody. In this video, I'm going to talk about how I personally go about arguing for the resurrection of Jesus.

[00:00:04]There are a number of different apologetic approaches to the resurrection. This is my personal favorite. Okay. But first, I'm going to talk about my least favorite, and that is the minimal facts approach. It was popularized by Gary Habermas and Mike Lakona. Nice guys. I just don't agree with them here. They're going to say that a minimal fact is something that virtually all scholars agree on, over 90%. And they have to be scholars from different viewpoints, including skeptics that would agree on the facts. So they could be liberal, they could be conservative, but they all agree that this is historical bedrock. This is something that we can just bank on. And this scholarly agreement is treated as a big deal because you have all of these different scholars from all of these different viewpoints agreeing. And so this must be really good. What are some of those facts that these scholars agree on? Number one is that Jesus died by crucifixion. And why do they agree on that? because it's attested by Tacitus, Josephus, Paul, the Gospels, everybody's talking about Jesus being crucified.

[00:00:57]It's not something that the gospel writers would likely invent. And so, it very likely happened. Also, they're going to say that Jesus's disciples sincerely believe they saw him resurrected. Why? Because Paul shares a creed in 1 Corinthians 3:5, which talks about appearances to Peter and the 12.

[00:01:14]And most scholars think that Paul got this creed shortly after his conversion, possibly even from the Jerusalem apostles himself. And so the belief in resurrection is very early and likely goes to the original source. Also, Paul himself believed he saw the risen Jesus.

[00:01:32]That's just his own testimony in his letters. So what they conclude from this, this is what a minimal facts apologist would say. This is literally a quote from their book, The Case for the Resurrection. Since no plausible opposing theories exist that can account for the historical facts, Jesus's resurrection is the only plausible explanation. And then they go through a number of different alternative theories like hallucination, fraud, and legend and say this is the best explanation that we have. The problem with this argument, the huge problem for minimal facts is that if you're a skeptic, you could just ask the minimal facts apologist, cool, great. What were the appearances like based on 1 Corinthians 15 3-5? or any of Paul's literature, what were they like? Guess what? We don't get a lot of details at all. So, here's minimal uh facts apologists in their own words. Michael Lacona says, "Historians may conclude that subsequent to Jesus's execution, a number of his followers had experiences in individual and group settings that convinced them that Jesus risen from the dead and appeared to them in some manner." Notice how qualified that is. Also, Gary Habermass, he writes, "Very soon afterwards, Jesus's disciples had experiences that they believed were appearances of the resurrected Jesus."

[00:02:45]Again, very qualified statement. Why do they have to be so qualified? Well, because there's not like details of the testimony here, right? When you look at the detailed descriptions in the Gospels, guess what? Critical scholars, they're not going to accept that. Your Dale Allison, your Bart Urman, these guys, your Ger Ludman, they don't think that stuff happened. They think that stuff is completely made up. Okay. And so scholars are considered to acknowledge the appearances. They're part of this 90% even if they doubt or deny the details of the resurrection accounts. And so is this really all that significant that some group of people believe that they saw something without any details? I'm going to argue that it's not really very significant. Uh it also means it doesn't mean I should say that the disciples believe that Jesus was physically alive and appeared to them in body. So, Habermas and Lacona, in order for them to say that yes, they believed in bodily resurrection, they have to make a separate argument that's outside of the minimal facts in order to say that that happened. And even then, at best, they can just show that they believed that Jesus appeared to them physically, that it was a physical body that he was in. But again, that doesn't take us really too far down the road because there's some scenarios that match this appearance fact. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, you could fit in a silent floating Jesus or a Jesus that appears once and just very briefly and speaks only in a few words, maybe even at a distance, I don't know, and then just disappears. These situations suggest at least one group sees Jesus and has a visual experience, but they weakly confirm or even contradict bodily resurrection. That's this these aren't very you can't get very much out of 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. can't squeeze that much out of it. Okay? And the bottom line is that if we can't describe the experiences in detail, it's super hard to judge if the disciples belief was rational even though they thought Jesus was physically raised. I'm sorry, but a vague miracle claim is weak. Details, details, details. That's what matters when it comes to miracle testimony. I think a much better approach, what I would like to label as the correct way is maximal data. Okay? And I know this makes me snobby, but that's okay. Um, and I know max data sounds super nerdy and we need better marketing, but whatever. What's the max data argument?

[00:05:01]We're going to argue that the disciples claimed to have had multi-ensory experiences, both as individuals and in groups on multiple occasions of conversing with Jesus. They claimed that he was able to eat and was tangible.

[00:05:13]They gave details of these encounters as found in the gospel accounts. You can see that's much stronger, right? Second, they undertook serious risk of death for making these claims and continue to do so under the threat of persecution.

[00:05:25]Therefore, the best explanation of these facts is that they were telling the truth. Jesus really rose from the dead.

[00:05:30]And I mean, look at the details of the testimony in the Gospels. We have 21 different testimonies gathered over 40 days, each with various details and degrees of independence. The kind of details that are in there aren't something that people could easily mistake. I'm sorry. when the women literally take hold of Jesus's feet after he's resurrected or you have Mary grabbing Jesus and him saying don't cling to me or Jesus inviting Thomas to touch his wounds or showing the the 12 in Luke's gospel hey look uh a ghost doesn't have flesh and bone like I do.

[00:05:59]These aren't things that people could even be uh easily mistaken about. And even Paul's testimony in the book of Acts, it's not just like he had this brief vision and it's over. Like he went blind. He heard a voice and he saw a light and he went blind. Another man, Ananas, had to pray that he'd be healed.

[00:06:17]This is uh these are some juicy details that one can't easily be mistaken about.

[00:06:23]Now, how do you dodge that conclusion?

[00:06:24]Well, if you're looking to avoid believing in Jesus' resurrection, your best bet is just just claim that the disciples didn't really experience or even claim those events. In other words, a skeptic might argue that the multi-ensory details were invented later by the writers of the four gospels, making it irrational for the disciples to believe Jesus rose. Because of course, they're going to say, "Look at these accounts. They're obviously legends. They're made up. They're embellished. And why would they need to be embellished if the original appearances were so convincing?" Okay?

[00:06:53]And so, what you're going to have to do as a Christian apologist is just man up and defend the gospels. But that's okay.

[00:07:00]So, we have to answer the question, are the physical details in the gospel accounts embellishments? I think that we can say that no, they're not. Because what are the gospels? What were the gospel authors like? And how do they handle truth? I'd say there is a metric butt ton of evidence showing that they were very careful, honest, well-informed, and close up to the facts. The evangelists, they aimed to write about Jesus by sticking to the facts. They didn't feel free to just make stuff up and change historical details. If true, then what they claim actually goes back to the original eyewitnesses, which again leads us to the conclusion like, hey, they can't really be mistaken about these things, and they're claiming it to a hostile audience. Therefore, the best explanation, Jesus really rose from the dead. So, what is some of the evidence supporting the honest nature of the evangelist? Well, if you follow my channel for any length of time, you know that I've made tons of videos on this particular topic. I'm just going to give you guys a real quick evidence sampler if I had like 20 minutes with a small group. These are some of the cases that I would share, the the lines of evidence that I would share. Okay? And so, here we go. John records a scene at the feast of booth where Jesus says, "On the last day of the feast, uh feast of booths, excuse me, that's plural, the feast of tabernacles." Okay? On the last day of the feast, Jesus cries out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink."

[00:08:16]Jewish tradition describes a major water drawing testimony at the feast and water was drawn from the pool of Saleom and poured out on the altar. is found in the Babylonian Talmud, right? Uh we also see that short after that, shortly after that, Jesus says, "I'm the light of the world." And then why is that significant? Well, the feast of booth was also associated with the major a major festival of lights. The Talmud describes huge golden lampstands, candalabbras in the temple courts. And they make a big deal. They're like, "Wow, there was not a courtyard in Jerusalem that was not so illuminated."

[00:08:48]They talk about like, "Oo, ah, it was just like the fourth of July to them.

[00:08:51]this is like an amazing uh place for all this this this this sites you know and so anyways John seeing fits the his the festival customs but he doesn't spell them out and think about who he's writing to Gentiles post 70 AD who can't go and check this information so he just casually mentions it this is exactly the kind of incidental detail that we expect from somebody who is very close to the setting another example of this is John 19:12 where in John Pilate wants to release Jesus but the crowd warns him if you release this man, you're not Caesar's friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar. Why would Pilate cave to these guys? Well, Pho, the Jewish philosopher who was a contemporary of Jesus, fills us in. He gives us the political backstory. Pilot had already angered the Jews by placing goldcoated shields in Herod's palace in Jerusalem. And the Jews are like, "Take that stuff down. That's idolatry. This is offensive." When the Jews appealed to Tiberius, Caesar rebuked Pilate and ordered the shields to be removed. He sided with the Jews. Pho says that Pilate feared an embassy would expose all of his corruption and cruelty and abuses as a governor. And so, Josephus also tells us who's writing in the first century, a Jewish historian, that Pilate was appointed prefect in Judea in AD26 and his patronage may have been linked to Sajanis, a powerful Ptorian prefect.

[00:10:08]Sajanis was executed in AD31 for a conspiracy against Tiberius. This is not only in Josephus, it's in juvenile, it's in Casius Dio. So after SAS fell, Tiberius became suspicious of people associated with him. And so yeah, that's why Pilate was scared. By Jesus's trial, Pilate was extremely vulnerable politically. And a report that he released a man accused of claiming kingship would look like disloyalty to Caesar. But John, he doesn't fill in any of this background, but pilots fear it fits perfect into the historical setting. And so this looks like real history. This doesn't look like, you know, madeup stories, right? Speaking of the same trial here, why would Pilate acquit Jesus the king? So, there this weird scenario in Luke where he's like, "Hey, you the king of the Jews?" And Jesus says, "Yep, you've said it yourself." And then Pilate goes to the crowds and goes, "All right, well, you know, no, I don't find any guilt in this man." And so, like, what? Like, here's this serious charge. And he's met with like it's met with he's innocent. No big deal. Well, what's the deal there? Well, John supplies the missing explanation.

[00:11:16]He says when he talks to Jesus about, "Hey, are you a king?" Jesus says, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight." And so Pilate concludes that Jesus isn't a political threat to Rome at all. He's like, "Oh, you're a spiritual king. You're just like some uh cook, some some crank. Um, you know, you're not a threat to Rome. Okay, whatever. I find no guilt in him." And so Luke gives us the charge, but John gives the explanation for Pilate's verdict, but it doesn't look like they're copying one another. In fact, in John, Pilate, when when we read John's account, the question just comes completely out of the blue. Are you the king of the Jews? But John actually never reports the Jewish leaders explicitly even making that charge. And so when you're reading John's account, it's like, well, that just came out of left field. Why is he just asking out of nowhere, are you the king of the Jews?

[00:12:04]But Luke supplies the miss the missing accusation. We found this man saying that he himself is Christ a king. Then Pilate asks, "Are you the king of the Jews?" Luke explains why Pilate asks the question and just out of nowhere it just comes abruptly. Okay, this is what real historical testimony looks like because real historical testimony interlocks. It fits together in a way that coheres, right?

[00:12:27]Another example of this is in Matthew 11:21 where Jesus, he gets harsh. He takes the gloves off. He denounces Cororsin and Bada because they rejected his miracles and he's like woe to you Corzin. Woe to you Besada. If Tier and Siden were still around, they would have repented if they saw this. You guys are hardhearted. So Matthew, he never actually tells us what miracles happened in Beda. Like what happened there? And so if you're just reading Matthew's account, you're like, what why is Jesus being so harsh with Beta? But when we flip over to Luke chapter 9 and verse 10, we find out that the feeding of the 5000 actually took place in Bethesda.

[00:13:05]Luke doesn't tie this to Jesus's later denunciation. He just drops the setting and the woes in chapter 10 in passing.

[00:13:12]Matthew, on the other hand, he arranges his gospel thematically. And so he orders things a little bit different and he puts the woe in chapter 11 and the feeding in chapter 14 with zero location attached. He doesn't mention where the feeding of the 5000 happened. We only find that out in Luke's gospel. But when you read it together, Luke supplies the missing setting where Matthew and Luke preserves the saying. And it gets deeper here because there's this story in Mark 8:22-26 where Jesus heals a blind man outside of the village of Beda in two stages using some spit. If you remember, the guy's like after round one of the spit, he's like, I see men walking around like trees. And then stage two, he's healed. But there's some weird details here. Think about it. Jesus leads him out of the town first.

[00:13:55]Then after the healing and again where's the town Bedada after the healing Jesus says don't even enter the village don't go back never explains why this healing had to happen outside Beda he doesn't explain why the guy couldn't go back so this instruction it feels super puzzling but remember we had the woes in Matthew 11:21 and Luke 10:13 Jesus had already pronounced woes on beta for rejecting his miracles the feeding of the 5000 neither Matthew nor Luke includes the blind man's story Mark includes the healing but with zero mention of the woes. And of course he includes the beating of the 5000. But when you put it all together, but he doesn't include the location, by the way. But when you put it all together, Jesus's actions in Mark make sense in light of the judgment recorded by Matthew and Luke. And so again, this is what real history looks like. This doesn't uh get explained very well by like just a bunch of copying from people who weren't even there and had no idea what was actually going on.

[00:14:51]There's also this account in Luke where Martha is sitting at Jesus's feet. Well, or excuse me, not Martha. Martha is super active. She's busy making dinner.

[00:15:01]She's upset actually that her sister Mary is sitting at Jesus's feet just listening to Jesus and she's like, "Jesus, what is going on? Tell her to help me."

[00:15:11]Right? Well, when we look at John's gospel, when he talks about these two sisters, Martha goes out to meet Jesus.

[00:15:17]This is after uh Lazarus had died and was buried already, right? He'd been dead for 4 days. And so what happens?

[00:15:25]Martha, she goes out to meet Jesus first while what? Mary remains seated, man.

[00:15:30]She she's the the sitting gal, right?

[00:15:33]John in John's gospel, Mary again, she ends up at Jesus's feet. She's very demonstrative and she throws herself at Jesus's feet. And then in John, Martha again focuses on practic practical concerns. So to quote the the good old King Jimmy Bible Lord by this time he stinkketh right we're not going to open the the the gravestone Jesus like are you serious right now? So again Martha is super focused on the practical here and saying hey Jesus are you sure you want to do that because this is going to be stinky. And then in John chapter 12 we see Martha is again serving. She's making preparation. She's making food again. She's in the kitchen. Well Mary where is she at? She's anointing Jesus's feet. And so across different scenes in Gospels, Martha acts, Mary sits at Jesus's feet. This is subtle character continuity among juster figures. I mean, who are these two girls? You don't see a whole lot of them in the Gospels, but this looks more like memory of real personalities and not literary copying, right? This looks more like reportage than just fictionalizing, okay? Because again, subtle character continuity. And so just real small little things like this add up. And there are dozens and dozens of examples like these. And I'm just again giving you guys the tip of the iceberg. There's also these weird little details that just don't seem to do anything. Like in John 2:12, it says that Jesus went down to Capernaum with his mother, brothers, and disciples, but he just never explains why. John also mentions a vague dispute about purification amongst John's disciples and some of Jesus' disciples, but he never explains what the dispute was actually about. John also records John the Baptist referring to the friend of the bridegroom, but he never explains the wedding custom that was behind this whole deal. John also mentions Jesus withdrawing to Ephraim near the wilderness, but gives no details what he did there. The story simply moves on to Bethy's and the, you know, when he goes to Bethany and the triumphal entry in six days before Passover and all of that. John also mentions Greeks at Passover who wanted to see Jesus, but he never tells what they wanted to ask. It just gets dropped. Instead, John records Jesus' response about his coming death and glorification. So, these are little small details that just get dropped.

[00:17:42]They feel incidental. They're specific enough to sound remembered, but they're not cleaned up for narrative efficiency.

[00:17:48]They don't serve any sort of theological or literary motive. They function like unexplained illusions. And that kind of loose ends looks like real reportage, right? That's what real reportage looks like. Also, and I've talked about this in plenty of other streams, that Acts gets hard things right over and over and over again, showing that Luke probably really did travel with Paul and went to places where Paul was and got his test or got Paul's testimony because he was with him and also would have had opportunity to interview Jerusalem apostles when Paul was in Jerusalem in Acts chapter 21. And it says that James and all the elders were present. And so what are some of the things that Acts gets right that are difficult that you couldn't just Google or look up right?

[00:18:30]There's the identification of thyroyra as a center of purple dine. This is attested by at least seven inscriptions in the city. There's the correct language spoken in Lististra. Lyonian according to philosopher Tim Mcgru. This was unusual in the cosmopolitan helanized society in which Paul moved.

[00:18:45]But the preservation of the local language is attested by a gloss in Stfanis of Bzantium and explains that derby is a local word for juniper. And this again he's getting this detail from a guy by the name of Colin Heammer who wrote this book that you see here called the book of Acts in the setting of Hellenistic history. And he goes over lots of these details, right? There's also the correct use of the word spermal logos or seed picker. Uh it's Athenian slang. Um, and he also gets the correct name of the court. And so we have inscriptions where this slang was used and it was especially used in Athens when they're basically making fun of Paul. Uh, we also get polyarks as the correct title for the Thessalonian magistrates. Grammatus is the correct title for the uh, Ephesian chief magistrates. Neocoros is the proper temple keeper title of honor in Ephesus.

[00:19:37]There are 84 verifiable facts from the book of Acts just from chapters 13- 28 alone. And so again, these are all spelled out in Hammer's book. See my Big Acts stream or any of my videos on the book of Acts. The book of Acts is a gold mine of historical nuggets. And so again, this is way better explained on this being reportage than just people making stuff up. Okay. Now, of course, you're gonna have guys like David Hume and all the the atheist parrots of his argument where they're just going to say miracles, you know, we can't believe miracles. A miracle supported by any human testimony is more properly the subject of a derision than of an argument because I mean, what's more likely that God violated the laws of nature in favor of humanity or that somebody's just mistaken or lying?

[00:20:25]Right? That's Hume's argument. Well, Hume was a doofus when it came to probability, and he sure didn't understand B theorem. And you could discuss that with the skeptic, but I think it's just way harder to argue with physical evidence. For example, here is a healing of a mute man, Pastor Dwayne Miller. He lost his voice after a severe bout of the flu in early 1990. He says the virus damaged the nerve tissue of his vocal cords beyond repair. Over three years, he says he was examined by 63 specialists in their teams, totaling over 200 doctors. His voice was reduced to a severe, painful horse whisper. When a um when he asked the doctor about his recovery, he was told, "There's no chance. It's not happening, right?

[00:21:08]You're just going to have this really scratchy horse uh voice that is going to grade on people when you talk to them."

[00:21:15]And so Miller was a pastor, right?

[00:21:18]Dwayne Miller is the name if I didn't mention that already. He was a pastor.

[00:21:22]He can't speak. So, he quit his job. He moved to Houston. He took a government records job. He lost that job because he couldn't testify in court. Insurance stopped covering treatments. His wife became the primary provider of the household. He was depressed because I mean, that's not a fun situation to go through. Um, he did teach Sunday school one time because his Sunday school class, they remembered him, they loved him, they wanted to honor him, and they just begged him to fill in. Just we don't we don't care how bad you sound.

[00:21:50]just just preach us a sermon, right? And so on January 17th, 93, Miller was teaching through the 103rd Psalm, he reached the verse about where God says, "He forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases." While teaching on healing, he said, he said he still believed that God heals. But he said on the inside, he was having this conversation with himself like, "Why not me, God?" But as he got to the word pit, the pressure in his throat suddenly vanished. His voice returned while he was speaking and the moment was recorded on audio. In fact, >> on the other hand, to say that since we don't have anything after the book of Acts that miracles ended at the book of Acts and they never happen again, is equally as wrong because you have put God in a box both ways. And he doesn't want to be in the box. So the psalmist says, "I'm excited. Bless the Lord, oh my soul." One of his benefits is he heals all of my tuck diseases. And then in verse four, he says, "And he redeems my life from the pit." Now, I like that verse just a whole lot. I have had and you have had in times past pit experiences.

[00:23:04]We've both had We've all had times when our life seemed to be in a pit, in a grave.

[00:23:18]And we didn't have an answer for the pit we find ourselves in.

[00:23:36]And I don't understand this right now.

[00:23:43]I'm a bit overwhelmed at the moment.

[00:23:55]I'm not quite sure what to say or do.

[00:24:04]So, there you go. I mean, that's pretty awesome. I I get a little choked up every time I listen to that. But could this be fake, right? Doctors later confirmed that his voice did in fact get restored. He had previously been seen by lots of doctors and specialists like I already mentioned. The account says that they could not find evidence of the prior problem. Now, think about this. If this were fake, hundreds would have known with his damaged voice. A hoax would require Miller, his doctors, uh his wife, the congregation to sustain an elaborate deception. a coincidence that would require his zero recovery chance to reverse suddenly while publicly teaching on the 103rd Psalm about healing. Um, I mean that's that's a crazy coincidence. And Miller reportedly continued speaking clearly afterward in his ministry. He's still giving his testimony to this day. He still speaks fine. And so that's pretty amazing.

[00:24:53]There's also cases of the blind seeing.

[00:24:55]We have Greg Spencer who began to suffer vision problems in his late 30s in August of 98. He was diagnosed with juvenile macular degeneration. Once you have JMD, you don't come back. That's not a disease that just heals on its own. His eyesight rapidly worsened over a few months with Greg becoming legally blind with uncorrected acuity in less than 2400 in his right eye and 2200 in his left. By May of 99, he registered for the Oregon Commission of the Blind.

[00:25:22]In 99, he began receiving disability payments. We have a letter here from his doctor, Dr. Richard Wellber diagnosing Greg with JMD. This is all medically documented. We also have the letter from the Oregon Commission of the Blind on June 23rd of 99 saying that Greg has been evaluated and yes, we're going to, you know, receive him and, you know, help him be prepared to live his life as a blind man. Now, Greg was before uh he was a truck driver, so obviously he had to quit his job and receive disability.

[00:25:52]Uh but before that he was a police officer and he had been exposed to a lot of things that just really tormented his mind and he attended a Christian men's retreat between August of 19th through the 21st 2002 where he had to wear thick glasses and still couldn't read the print of his Bible. He didn't even pray for physical healing. He prayed for the healing of his mind. He just wanted to be free from all the past trauma he experienced as a former cop.

[00:26:16]Opthalmology records record two weeks later in early May. They noted near perfect and instantaneous improvement.

[00:26:23]So after the prayer, Greg had closed his eyes. He opened his eyes. He said that he could see a sign that said exit. He started looking around and just seeing everything. His uh wife was driving him home and he was reading license plates and billboards because he was just so excited. And so the Social Security Administration had to investigate Greg for fraud. But they concluded that he wasn't lying, that he really was blind and now he could see. And so you get an idea by the visual there of what his uncorrected acuity uncorrected acuity was uh pre-healing versus after. Like this is a pretty amazing miracle that's just not explicable through naturalism whatsoever. Um, we have a letter from his doctor, John Burpie, in May 3rd of 2002 and uh sending it to the Social Security Administration and the Social Security Administration concluded their investigation and said there's evidence of juvenile macular degeneration. This is not fraud. And guess what? Greg went back to work. And so to deny this miracle, you would need wrong diagnosis, wrong testing, wrong disability status, mistaken witnesses, unexplained timing.

[00:27:30]you know, receiving this miracle at during prayer, mistaken post-healing exams, mistaken social security review, and over two decades of sustained accidental recovery because Greg is still fine to this day, or some kind of wide sick gale conspiracy for a guy to get some disability checks only for him later to go back to his job doing what?

[00:27:48]Driving trucks, um, living the dream.

[00:27:50]And so, again, I think this is best explained as a miracle. And so, take that and put that in your your pipe, Hume, boys. Um I I don't think any of your no amount of uh human testimony could ever establish a miracle argument is really going to work on people who have lost their voice and then regain it or are blind and then can see maybe just maybe the way that you guys are looking at this is just just wrong. It's just just wrong. And so the best explanation is that Jesus really rose from the dead.

[00:28:22]The gospels are genuine historical reportage. They're consistent with eyewitness testimony. Therefore, we have access to what the alleged witnesses claimed, including the claims of Paul and the disciples, and they experienced this in a context where they were g being greatly persecuted. And we have good precedent for miracles today.

[00:28:39]There's no good reason to reject the resurrection because miracles don't happen. Um, and these cases show that Jesus really is still active and alive in the world today, which would be expected if he claimed to be divine and really rose from the dead. That is my argument for the resurrection. I hope that you found this video helpful and thank you guys so much for watching.