Does the modern historical-critical lens on the Bible reject miracles on principle and thereby exclude in advance what it presupposes not to be true? Here I counter this critique by explaining how the miracles in the Gospels are problematized not by metaphysical prejudice but historical analysis. Taking the miracles in the Gospels at face value as historical events is problematic even if we work within a metaphysical frame that allows for miracles. Ultimately, it's a matter of historical reconstruction, not worldview, that forces us to rethink how much of the materials can be taken as reliable accounts of "what happened."

0:00 Does Modern Historical-Critical Scholarship Preclude Miracles on Principle?

2:23 A Metamodern Christianity Needs the Modern

3:59 Anti-Miracle Modernism: Steelmanning that Argument (Even Though It's Not Mine)

9:37 The Argument I Am Making: More Information Problematizes Naive Readings

13:09 Setting the Stage: Messianic Expectation and Prophecy Fulfilment

Assessing Miracle Accounts in Light of the Historical Context

17:07 1. Jesus' Birth

29:15 2. Jesus' Calming of the Storm

36:00 3. Jesus' Crucifixion

39:38 4. Jesus' Resurrection

41:38 5. Jesus' Ascension

44:15 Other Historical Considerations

53:50 "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord?" Misses the Point Entirely

58:10 Meta-Naturalism: Appreciating an Incomplete Scientific Paradigm

1:03:28 Metamodern Christianity Should Be Robust and Include the Modern Lens

1:06:38 Metamodern Christianity: Informed Naivete and Truth in Development

1:09:50 Conclusion