In this final (for now) video on the question of what skeptical and moderate scholars grant about the resurrection appearances, I argue that the majority of skeptical scholars probably do not even grant a group vision-like appearance experience with some degree of intersubjective content. I discuss how I think Dr. Habermas got, and gave, the impression that at least a lot of skeptical scholars do grant at least that much.Here is the livestream that I cite repeatedly in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YSY_hcIB14&t=349sI had intended to read a quotation from E. P. Sanders in the video but forgot to put it in my notes. There are a number of such quotations in which Sanders expresses complete agnosticism about who was present and what the disciples saw. I have more in my notes. Here is just one:"If we are also unable, as I am, to think that early Christianity was deliberately based on fraud, we must be content with the simplest, vaguest sort of conclusion: something happened to the followers of Jesus, but we do not know what it was.”When someone emphasizes strongly that he's pushing for only the "simplest, vaguest sort of conclusion" that "something happened to the followers of Jesus, but we do not know what it was," I think we should believe him. Sanders also says, "We are unable to find a 'bedrock' description or a fundamental list of appearances.” "But Did It Happen?" _The Spectator_, April 6, 1996, pp. 12ffhttps://archive.spectator.co.uk/page/6th-april-1996/12It looks like only a very small number of scholars one could with any plausibility designate as "skeptical" grant even some kind of group experience. I also implied but want to stress even more: For Ludemann, Goulder, and Vermes, it is difficult to assess what degree of intersubjectivity they actually agree to and whether this meets Licona's definition of a group appearance experience. Those I've designated as "moderates," most or all of whom consider themselves actually to *believe* in some kind of supernatural or paranormal resurrection of Jesus (which is why they shouldn't be called "skeptics") but who make heavy use of critical methodology on the Gospels (which is why I call them "moderates" rather than just "Christians" or "conservatives") do accept some kind of group appearance, but not the kind in the Gospels.What effect would these facts about scholarship have on our ability to make a good argument for Jesus' resurrection *if* we think of what is granted in this way as a representation of what can be argued for "as historians"? Thumbnail, Jesus Visits the Disciples in Locked Room Without Thomas © Drawn to the Word/Paul Oman Fine Art. All Rights Reserved.www.paulomanfineart.comUsed with permission