Sea Breeze:
The time stamp is 4:49 on the first video you posted in regards to the doctorate panel's instruction to the then future doctor. He was told that he could not use the New Testament as evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.
A book a read make a statement that really struck home with me -
First, you must have faith that your religion has truth. Second, you must have doubt in your religion. Third, you must have dedication to find the truth, whatever it may be.
Referring to doubt, the writer stated to have doubt, but not be skeptical. There is a difference. A skeptic is looking for anything to disprove something. A doubter simply seeks the truth. It also means not clinging to an idea and seeking to only prove it to be true. There is a balance. A middle way.
I am open to there being a historical Jesus. It would even be reasonable that such a man was executed for his teachings. It would be reasonable that a religion would be born from that man's teachings.
I also know that the Jesus story is built on the foundation of a belief in a future Messiah who would liberate the Jews from their never ceasing line of foreign conquerors. The Old Testament was written by a people who were constantly having their religious beliefs influenced by the conqueror of the day. Egyptians, Persians, Macedonians/Greeks, and then the Romans. Persian Zoroastrian religion gave the Jews a monotheist religion. The Greeks gave the Jews an afterlife.
That is why the sects of the Pharisees and the Sadducees came to be. It was their job to keep the Jewish religion pure from outside influence. That is why they attacked Jesus because his teachings did not align with theirs. That is also why there are those who theorize that when Jesus spoke about his father, God, that it was not YHWH Jesus was speaking of. That the Jews had left the worship of their true god for the worship of another, YHWH.
I am off track here. My point being that Dr. Haberman provides sound arguments, but not evidence. That is what apologetics is - it is reason based argument, only. Reason based argument can show things are possible. That doesn't mean they are.
It is like the Scooby Do argument - you can use reason based argument to show that there is most likely some sort of consciousness that fits the description of what some call "god". However, to make the statement that the consciousness spoken of is god "X" requires evidence. That the one true religion of "X" is "Y" takes a tremendous amount of evidence. This is where the honest believer has to admit that they substitute evidence with belief.
I commend you, Sea Breeze. You obviously are actively seeking truth. Belief is holding on to an idea regardless of the evidence presented. Faith is letting go of all idea and accepting the truth as you experience it. Have a little faith. The Apostles did.