SPOCK
This court is now in session.
Be seated.

SPOCK
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) may proceed.
(A beat.)
The inquiry begins.

When fear, grief, or despair are justified, can love still be deliberately chosen—and does that choice matter?

When fear, grief, or despair feel justified—when forgiveness feels unreasonable— when love feels difficult or even impossible—what will you choose?

This case is also not about rescuing tragedy from meaninglessness.

Sometimes love is chosen not because it is true— but because despair is unbearable.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, call your first witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The Plaintiff.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Explain how you understand prophecy in the context of this case.

PLAINTIFF
In the context of this case, prophecy is not understood as prediction or fortune-telling.

It is understood as a mode of attention that confronts the present moral moment.

Biblically, prophecy functions to awaken awareness, clarify responsibility, and invite response—especially in times of crisis, injustice, or loss. It speaks into the now, not primarily about the future.

As it is used here, prophecy is: a lens, not a timetable; a warning, not a forecast; an invitation, not a mandate.

Throughout Scripture, prophets spoke before, during, and after catastrophe—not to explain why events occurred, but to call people back to justice, mercy, humility, and love.

When future consequences were mentioned, they were conditional, not deterministic, and served to illuminate responsibility rather than remove choice.

This case adopts that same understanding.

Prophecy, as I am using the term, refers to a way in which attention is arrested—sometimes unexpectedly—in a manner that forces ethical clarity in the present.

It does not eliminate human freedom. It returns it.

It does not provide answers. It poses a question.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Before the lottery numbers were chosen, was there anything shaping how you were thinking about prophecy or meaning at that time?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

Before any lottery numbers were selected, I had been studying the Book of Revelation in depth. Not for prediction or timelines, but to understand how Scripture addresses fear, endurance, witness, and moral choice under pressure.

That study influenced how I understood prophecy generally—as something meant to orient attention and conscience in the present, not to forecast events.

Around that same period, I also saw the movie Knowing. While it was memorable and entertaining, it did not function as a framework or guide. At most, it introduced the general idea that numbers can capture attention—nothing more.

The primary influence on my thinking at that time was Scripture, not cinema.

And even then, I did not believe I was interpreting Revelation or applying it to events. I was simply engaged in study, reflection, and ordinary life.

That context existed before the numbers were chosen—and before any later tragedy occurred.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Before we move forward, the court needs clarity on one point. What role, if any, did God play in how you understood and responded to these events?

PLAINTIFF
I want to be precise here.

I am not claiming certainty about divine action, nor am I presenting proof of supernatural intervention. What I am describing is discernment—the human process of attending to meaning, conscience, and moral responsibility within a religious framework.

As a Christian, I understand prophecy historically as involving God, often mediated through human messengers and, in Scripture, sometimes through angels. That theological background shaped how I interpreted what was happening. It made me open to the possibility that my attention was being prompted—not forced, not overridden, but invited.

At no point did I experience compulsion, loss of agency, or instruction that bypassed reason or conscience. Every action I took remained voluntary, reflective, and subject to doubt.

If God was involved, it was not in the form of commands or predictions, but in the form Scripture most often describes: a quiet drawing of attention toward love, humility, and responsibility.

I did not act because I was certain God had spoken. I acted because I believed—fallibly, cautiously, and with skepticism—that I might be being invited to pay attention and choose love in the midst of uncertainty.

That belief itself is what is on trial here—not the existence of God, not the mechanics of angels, and not claims of supernatural proof.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please describe the personal events that led you to play the lottery using your own meaningful numbers rather than random selections.

PLAINTIFF
In early 2009, several ordinary but converging personal factors shaped the decision to play the lottery with non-random numbers.

At that time, I was engaged in an in-depth study of the Book of Revelation. My interest was not in decoding timelines or predicting events, but in understanding how Scripture uses symbolism to confront fear, endurance, witness, and moral choice. That study made me more attentive to how symbols—and particularly numbers—function in biblical texts as devices that draw attention rather than provide instruction.

Around the same period, I also saw the film Knowing. It is a fictional apocalyptic thriller in which numbers that initially appear random later align with dates and catastrophic events. I found the film entertaining, not instructional, but it did leave me with a general awareness of how numbers can capture attention without explaining meaning.

Separately, I was working in healthcare IT consulting at GE Healthcare. The work was demanding, and humor was a common way my team dealt with stress. During a lighthearted moment, a coworker picked up a novelty “Answer Me Jesus” toy on her desk and jokingly asked whether I would win the lottery so I could quit my job. The answer displayed was: “Love one another.” We laughed, and the moment passed. At the time, it carried no theological or prophetic weight for me.

Shortly after that, I realized that lottery drawings occurred on Fridays. That fact intersected with something personal: in 2009, my tenth wedding anniversary fell on Good Friday.

About a week before that date, I remember sitting quietly at my desk, reflecting on my marriage. I was not thinking about probability, prediction, or strategy. I was asking a relational question: if I were to choose numbers, what numbers would honor my marriage and the relationships most central to my life?

That reflection led me to select numbers rooted entirely in personal and relational meaning, not randomness, calculation, or prediction.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please explain the specific numbers you chose, how they were derived, and what they meant to you at the time they were selected.

PLAINTIFF
The numbers were selected years before any later tragedy and were chosen entirely out of love and relationship—not fear, calculation, or prediction.

Each number corresponded to a meaningful personal event or relationship:

9/8 — a shared family birthday, belonging to my brother David and my sister-in-law Mary;
12/14 — the date of my first date with my wife;
12/20 — the date of our second date, when we went to see Titanic;
and a wedding anniversary that fell on Good Friday in 2009.

At the time the numbers were chosen, they held no theological or prophetic framework in my mind. They were simply markers of relationship, memory, and love.

I did believe—mistakenly—that despite impossible odds, the numbers might win the lottery. If that had occurred, my intention at the time was to give all the winnings away. That intention is documented in an email I sent to my mother four days before the drawing, on my birthday.

When the numbers did not win, the ticket was not discarded. It was preserved as a personal artifact—an expression of love and meaning—rather than as evidence of failure or loss.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
At this time, Your Honor, the affirmative counsel seeks to admit Exhibit B.

SPOCK
On what basis?

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Exhibit B consists of the original lottery tickets purchased by the plaintiff in 2009 and subsequent years, containing the numbers just described. They are offered to establish timing, intent, and preservation—not interpretation or causation.

SPOCK
Any objection?

SPOCK
Exhibit B is admitted for the limited purpose stated.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Mr. Brandvik, what are we looking at in Exhibit B?

PLAINTIFF
These are the original lottery tickets containing the numbers I’ve described. They were purchased on specific dates, including Good Friday in 2009, and later occasions. When they did not win, I kept them and placed them behind my wedding photograph. They were preserved as personal artifacts, not as proof of anything.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Before the lottery drawing occurred, did you communicate your expectations or intentions to anyone?

PLAINTIFF
Yes. Four days before the drawing—on my birthday—I sent an email to my mother.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What did that email express?

PLAINTIFF
It expressed my belief at the time that I would win the lottery and my intention, if that occurred, to give the money away.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Is that belief documented anywhere other than your memory today?

PLAINTIFF
Yes. The email itself documents that belief and intention at the time it was written.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Your Honor, we submit Exhibit C.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What happened when the numbers did not win?

PLAINTIFF
I was disappointed—both emotionally and in myself—for allowing so much hope for an outcome I knew was extremely unlikely.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How did that disappointment affect your behavior?

PLAINTIFF
It corrected it. I did not continue playing the lottery. I had no intention of playing again.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
For how long?

PLAINTIFF
For more than a year.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
During that time, did you interpret the numbers as prophetic or meaningful beyond personal memory?

PLAINTIFF
No. They remained a private artifact of a past experience, not an ongoing pursuit.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What caused you to revisit the numbers after that period?

PLAINTIFF
Events surrounding my sister’s wedding on November 20, 2010.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Was this decision driven by renewed hope of winning the lottery?

PLAINTIFF
No. I had already experienced disappointment and had set that expectation aside.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What was different this time?

PLAINTIFF
The experience was tied to remembrance, meaning, and participation—not outcome. The numbers no longer functioned as a wager, but as a marker of unfolding events I was trying to understand.

There were lots of strange coincidences and memorable moments around the wedding.

After the wedding, I felt very connected to God and reflected a lot about the importance of faith and family. Then I realized that 12/14 was coming up. It happened to fall on a lottery drawing day. That’s what prompted me to play the numbers again.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So to be clear: this was not a continuation of the 2009 belief?

PLAINTIFF
Correct. It was a separate moment, prompted by different circumstances and approached with different expectations.

What remained consistent, however, was the theme of marriage.

I still embraced the idea of giving the money away, but this time I held no expectation of winning.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Did this renewed engagement with the numbers immediately lead you to interpret them as prophetic?

PLAINTIFF
No. At that time, the numbers carried only personal and symbolic meaning. I did not understand them as prophetic, nor was I seeking for them to function that way.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Then when did your relationship to the numbers change?

PLAINTIFF
Later—after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

That was the moment when numbers that had previously belonged only to private memory intersected with a public event in a way that arrested my attention and raised a moral question I could not ignore.

What confronted me was not interpretation or belief, but coincidence of detail:

The event occurred in the morning—9:00 a.m. Eastern, 8:00 a.m. Central. The date was December 14. Twenty children were killed.

Taken together—9, 8, 12, 14, 20—these details forced my attention, not because they explained anything, but because they disrupted my ordinary way of thinking.

I make no claim that these numbers caused, predicted, or explained what happened. I assign no meaning to the tragedy itself.

But the convergence of time, date, and loss redirected my attention—from faith, family, and ordinary life toward the reality of unbearable suffering— and confronted me with a deeper question: how a human being responds when attention is forcibly drawn to evil.

Scripture teaches that God—understood as love—is sovereign even in the presence of evil. In a broken world, that claim is often the greatest barrier to faith. I could not help but notice that an act of profound evil appeared to overlay numbers I had chosen entirely out of love. That tension raised a question I could not dismiss: whether this collision echoed a core biblical truth rather than explained an event.

That moment marked the change.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Describe your process of discovery regarding how these numbers later came to function symbolically—and drew your attention in ways you came to understand as prophetic.

PLAINTIFF
The process unfolded gradually, not all at once.

At first, the numbers remained what they had always been: personal and relational. They marked birthdays, courtship, and marriage. They carried emotional significance, not theological meaning. There was nothing prophetic about them in my mind.

Only later did they begin to function as attention markers.

In trying to understand why my attention had been so forcefully disrupted, I recalled the film Knowing, in which numbers that appear random later align with dates and loss. That parallel did not provide explanation or meaning—but it helped me recognize the experience for what it was: attention being captured, not answers being given.

I make no claim of predictive prophecy. This could have been coincidence. But coincidence alone does not explain why attention shifts—or what one does after it does.

I did not interpret the numbers as causing anything or foretelling tragedy. Instead, they redirected my focus toward a deeper and more difficult question: how human beings respond when confronted with profound loss.

In that sense, I came to understand them as prophetic—not because they revealed the future, but because they focused attention on the present moral choice between despair and love.

The numbers did not provide answers. They demanded attention.

And it was that sustained attention—not certainty—that ultimately led me to bring this case.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How are these numbers being used in this case, and what limits are you placing on their meaning?

PLAINTIFF
The numbers are being used in this case solely as attention markers, not as explanations.

They are not offered to explain why tragedy occurs, to predict future events, or to prove divine intervention. They do not assign meaning to suffering, justify harm, or suggest that events were intended or orchestrated.

Their only function is to help frame a human process of attention and recognition. They mark moments where ordinary human experiences—love, relationship, memory, loss—intersect in ways that prompt reflection.

In this case, the numbers serve as a narrative thread that keeps the focus where it belongs: not on causes, mechanisms, or certainty, but on how human beings respond after tragedy or life challenges arrive.

They are offered as corroboration of attention, never as causation. They invite reflection, not belief. They point toward moral choice, not metaphysical claims.

Any meaning drawn from them belongs to the jury, not to the numbers themselves.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What are you not claiming about these numbers, and what should the jury avoid inferring from them?

PLAINTIFF
I am not claiming that the numbers predict events, cause tragedies, encode secret messages, or reveal divine intent in a mechanical way.

I am not claiming that suffering is planned, deserved, or required for meaning to emerge. And I am not claiming that these numbers explain why tragedies occur.

The jury should not infer that numbers replace moral judgment, human responsibility, or rational inquiry. They do not override evidence, history, or common sense.

The numbers function only as attention markers. They draw focus—but they do not interpret events for us.

Any meaning that arises does not come from the numbers themselves. It comes from how human beings respond once their attention is captured—especially in moments of loss.

In this case, the numbers are offered with strict limits: as contextual corroboration, not proof; as invitation, not instruction; and as a framework for reflection, not belief.

The jury is free to dismiss them entirely. Their role is not to convince—but to invite attention to the choice that follows tragedy: despair or love.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel may cross.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
You’ve testified the numbers are not predictive and do not cause events. Correct?

PLAINTIFF
Correct.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And you agree humans are pattern-seeking by nature?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Including confirmation bias?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So once the numbers caught your attention, it’s possible you simply noticed them more—without any external significance?

PLAINTIFF
May I offer an analogy to clarify the limits of that explanation?

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And you cannot prove these numbers occur more often than chance allows?

PLAINTIFF
My claim is not causation. It is structured coherence—coherence that resists easy dismissal as coincidence.

I am not asserting that these numbers are magical or causative, only that their behavior together is plausibly non-random. Here is how I invite the jury to evaluate that claim.

Consider a replication test.

First, choose five numbers derived from meaningful dates in your own life—births, relationships, marriages, or losses. Then ask whether those numbers naturally align with an established symbolic framework—religious or philosophical—that already assigns meaning to numbers.

Second, attempt the reverse. Begin with symbolic numbers drawn from an existing tradition—biblical numerology, if you choose—and see whether you can assemble them into a set that is both personally meaningful and independently anchored in real historical people and events, forming a coherent narrative rather than an arbitrary collection.

Third, test scope. Examine whether your numbers align not only with isolated stories, but with major turning points within a single historical framework. In my case, that framework was American history, and the numbers coherently aligned with its critical events over multiple centuries. You may find meaningful stories—but do they consistently converge at foundational moments, or do they scatter?

Fourth, examine convergence. Do those same numbers also align with the central narrative of the religious or philosophical tradition from which they were drawn? In my case, they did—across multiple, independent domains.

The focus here is not merely on the numbers themselves. The difficult element to replicate is the process: how the numbers were chosen, why they were chosen, and whether their symbolism allows them to function together—and independently— in a way that produces a consistent, constrained, and compelling narrative.

For example, I can demonstrate that before tragedy entered my life, these numbers were not associated with money or gain. I saved losing lottery tickets not as wagers, but as artifacts of affection and symbolism. Any argument that frames this pattern as post-hoc meaning-making ignores that documented prior intent.

What I am offering is not proof of destiny or divine causation, but evidence of structured coherence that resists easy explanation by randomness alone.

I encourage skepticism. I encourage testing. My claim stands or falls on whether this pattern can reasonably be dismissed as coincidence—or whether it warrants sustained attention.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Isn’t it still true coherence can be constructed after the fact?

PLAINTIFF
Yes—human beings can construct meaning retrospectively.

But I distinguish arbitrary invention from constrained recognition. Early followers of Jesus revisited existing texts after a shocking event and recognized themes (the suffering messiah) that had not been emphasized before. The sheer number of Christ prophecies in the Old Testament led to attention.

The texts existed. The events occurred. What changed was attention—and that attention fueled action and consequence.

Retrospective recognition does not automatically invalidate meaning. In many historical cases, it is precisely how meaning emerges.

Statistical proof of causation is not my claim. I am claiming my prophetic experience resists easy explanations. It’s not ordinary. It is, in fact, remarkable.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So again—why should this court treat your view as more than personal narrative?

PLAINTIFF
Because a private experience intersected with a public tragedy. I offer no explanation—only a framework for human response after such events and possibly a means to prevent future events like it.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Isn’t it possible this merely comforts people without measurable change?

PLAINTIFF
Yes. People have free will.

But if even one act of violence could be interrupted, the effort is justified. Outcomes can be evaluated later.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So this is not a conclusion—just a proposal?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And you are not asking the court to declare it true—only reasonable?

PLAINTIFF
Correct. Attention—not proof—is required.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Then if people reject it, they lose nothing?

PLAINTIFF
History disagrees. Unchecked fear, grief, and despair—especially in power—often precede harm.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Are you blaming those who do not choose love for future violence?

PLAINTIFF
No. I am describing intervention before harm—not guilt after it.

Violence emerges from cycles of fear, rumination, isolation, despair. Interrupting those cycles reduces risk.

No coercion. No belief. Just interruption.

PLAINTIFF
I am a believing Christian.

According to the Jesus I follow, authority is exercised through love—not control. The red letters command interruption of hatred, retaliation, despair.

That authority is not exclusive. It is offered.

The jury need not believe me. Only consider whether despair has ever healed anyone.

PLAINTIFF
One question—answered simply.

Can you name a single life, family, or community that has been healed by remaining indefinitely in despair—without interruption?

Not distracted. Not numbed. Healed.

SPOCK
Motion denied. Despair has not demonstrated standing as a remedy.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
One final question, Your Honor.

SPOCK
Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Plaintiff—what are you asking of the jury?

PLAINTIFF
Only this:

When fear, grief, or despair arrive—pause long enough to notice them, and consider choosing love instead.

That is all.

SPOCK
The record will reflect that the witness asks for attention, not assent. Witness excused.

SPOCK
Redirect?

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Just so the record is clear—are you asking anyone to accept your framework, or only to consider whether attention toward love can interrupt despair?

PLAINTIFF
Only consideration. Attention is the invitation. Choice remains free.

SPOCK
The Plaintiff’s foundational testimony is admitted in full.

Adversarial Counsel cross-examination is complete. Redirect is complete.

This court will proceed with corroborating witnesses.

The jury is reminded: There will be no verdict, only choice.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls Mel Gibson.

SPOCK
Mr. Gibson, you are called as a corroborating witness.

You are not asked to establish proof, prophecy, supernatural causation, or doctrinal authority.

You are asked to testify to artistic process, stated intent, and audience reception as they relate to the works under review.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

WITNESS (GIBSON)
Yes, Your Honor.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and occupation for the court record.

WITNESS
Mel Gibson. I am an actor, director, and producer.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Before turning to The Passion of the Christ, the court asks you to address the film you worked on immediately prior—Signs.

Briefly describe the film and your role in it.

WITNESS
I acted in Signs and also served as a producer.

Although it’s often described as science fiction, the film is really about grief, loss, and whether events in our lives are random or meaningful.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court has reviewed the film.

Please describe the scene in which the characters watch global news footage of unexplained lights, and explain its significance.

WITNESS
They watch live coverage of lights appearing around the world.

The scene signals something global and unsettling, but more importantly it arrests attention. It confronts the characters with uncertainty—whether what they’re seeing is chaos or something that demands interpretation.

SPOCK
Clarify:

Does the scene resolve that question?

WITNESS
No. Resolution comes later.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
By the end of the film, how is that question resolved for the main character, Graham Hess?

WITNESS
He recognizes that events he thought were meaningless are connected.

Timing, words, injuries—things that seemed arbitrary—converge in a way that saves his family.

SPOCK
And what changes in the character?

WITNESS
His attention.

He moves from despair to meaning—not because loss is undone, but because coherence is recognized after the fact.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Did telling that story prepare you for the story you chose to tell next?

WITNESS
Yes.

Signs made clear how deeply people struggle with suffering and uncertainty, and how carefully stories like that must be told.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What story did you choose to tell next?

WITNESS
The Passion of the Christ.

(Silence.)

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The Passion of the Christ opens with a quotation from Isaiah 53.

You have said this passage expresses what the film is fundamentally about. Explain.

WITNESS
Isaiah 53 describes a suffering servant who bears injustice on behalf of others.

It frames the story as sacrifice willingly endured out of love—not meaningless brutality.

SPOCK
So Scripture provided the narrative structure?

WITNESS
Yes. Scripture provided the foundation.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
You have publicly referenced Anne Catherine Emmerich and writings attributed to her.

Explain her role in the film.

WITNESS
She was a nineteenth-century Catholic mystic whose recorded visions described the Passion in vivid physical detail.

Her writings were not treated as Scripture, but they were a significant imaginative source—helping fill in details the Gospels leave sparse.

SPOCK
Be precise:

Did her visions determine the story?

WITNESS
No.

Scripture determined the story. Emmerich helped render the suffering concrete rather than abstract.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How would you characterize that influence?

WITNESS
They influenced imagery, not meaning.

Where there was tension, Scripture took precedence.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Why was it necessary to depict suffering so directly?

WITNESS
Because softening it would diminish its cost.

Without seeing suffering honestly, love and forgiveness become sentimental abstractions.

SPOCK
So the graphic nature was not spectacle?

WITNESS
No.

It was moral weight.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Some viewers have assigned symbolic or prophetic meaning to events surrounding the film.

Without endorsing those interpretations, do you have any comment?

WITNESS
A film cannot fulfill prophecy.

It can reawaken attention. Beyond that, interpretation belongs to the viewer.

SPOCK
The record will reflect the witness’s repeated limitations.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Mr. Gibson, you are not claiming divine authority for this film.

WITNESS
No.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
You anticipated some viewers would find it disturbing rather than redemptive.

WITNESS
Yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So meaning depends on interpretation.

WITNESS
Interpretation plays a role.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And meaning others assign exceeds your intent and responsibility.

WITNESS
Interpretation belongs to the viewer.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
No further questions.

SPOCK
The witness has testified to artistic process, stated intent, and explicit limitation.

No claims of prophecy, causation, or authority beyond storytelling have been asserted.

The testimony is admitted for corroborative purposes only.

SPOCK
Stories do not compel belief. They test where attention rests.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls Clemens Brentano.

SPOCK
Mr. Brentano, you appear before this court as a historical corroborating witness.

You are not asked to establish doctrine, validate visions, assert supernatural causation, or claim prophetic authority.

You are asked only to testify to what you personally observed, recorded, and deliberately constrained in your role as a recorder.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

WITNESS (BRENTANO)
Yes, Your Honor.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and occupation for the court record.

WITNESS
My name is Clemens Brentano. I was a poet, writer, and editor associated with the German Romantic movement.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What first drew your attention to Anne Catherine Emmerich?

WITNESS
Reports concerning her physical condition and religious experiences—particularly claims that she bore the stigmata.

These reports were circulating publicly and were already subject to controversy and scrutiny.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Did you approach her as a believer seeking confirmation, or as a writer seeking record?

WITNESS
As a recorder.

I did not go to authenticate miracles or promote devotion. I went to observe, to listen, and to document what she said as accurately as possible.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What did you document?

WITNESS
I recorded her spoken descriptions of visions—particularly those concerning the life and Passion of Jesus Christ.

I transcribed what she reported over extended periods and organized the material for clarity and continuity.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What did you refuse to document or assert?

WITNESS
I did not interpret the visions. I did not declare them authoritative. I did not attempt to harmonize them with Scripture beyond basic organization.

Where uncertainty existed, I preserved it.

SPOCK
You intentionally refrained from resolving ambiguity.

WITNESS
Yes, Your Honor. To remove ambiguity would have falsified the record.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
If you were so cautious, why did you continue documenting at all?

WITNESS
Because the material was internally consistent and sustained over time.

My task was not to decide its meaning, but to ensure that it was not lost.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
At any point did you become aware that you shared the same birth date—September 8—with Anne Catherine Emmerich?

WITNESS
Yes. I became aware of that fact after our acquaintance had already begun.

SPOCK
The shared date is entered as biographical and liturgical fact only, without attribution of motive, causation, or interpretive intent.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Your documentation was later published as The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Is that correct?

WITNESS
Yes.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
You cannot prove these visions were true.

WITNESS
That was never my claim.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
No further questions.

SPOCK
The testimony is admitted for corroborative purposes only.

SPOCK
Preservation is not endorsement. Recording is not interpretation.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls Flavius Josephus.

SPOCK
Mr. Josephus, you appear before this court as a historian.

You are not asked to offer theology, prophecy, or interpretation—only to testify to what you recorded, when you recorded it, and why.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

WITNESS (JOSEPHUS)
I do, Your Honor.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and occupation for the court record.

WITNESS
My name is Flavius Josephus. I am a Jewish historian—formerly a commander in the Jewish revolt, later writing under Roman patronage.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Why did you write The Wars of the Jews?

WITNESS
To document the causes, conduct, and consequences of the revolt against Rome—particularly the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

I sought to preserve memory, not to inspire revolt or devotion.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please tell the court what occurred in Jerusalem in the year 70 AD.

WITNESS
Jerusalem was besieged by Roman forces under Titus, son of Emperor Vespasian.

The city was divided internally by factional violence. Famine spread rapidly. The population was trapped during a major pilgrimage season.

The siege ended in the destruction of the city and the Temple.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Did you record the date on which Jerusalem was taken?

WITNESS
Yes.

In The Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chapter 10, I wrote that Jerusalem was taken on the eighth day of the month Elul, in the second year of the reign of Vespasian.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
For clarity to a modern reader, what does Elul correspond to?

WITNESS
Elul corresponds most closely to September in the Roman calendar.

SPOCK
Let the record note:

Modern historical summaries commonly render “the eighth day of Elul” as September 8 in the corresponding Roman calendar year, based on Josephus’ account.

So noted.
Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Describe for the court the scale of what occurred.

WITNESS
The destruction was total.

Many perished—famine, internal violence, and war. The Temple was burned. The city was razed. Survivors were enslaved or dispersed.

Jerusalem ceased to function as the religious and political center of Jewish life.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Was this an ordinary military defeat?

WITNESS
No.

It was a civilizational collapse.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Did the destruction of the Temple occur on a date already significant within Jewish tradition?

WITNESS
Yes.

The Temple was destroyed on the Ninth of Av—a day associated with judgment and catastrophe in Jewish memory.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So the taking of the city and the destruction of the Temple occurred within days of one another?

WITNESS
Yes.

The fall of Jerusalem culminated in the loss of the Temple itself.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Did you write your history to validate Christian theology?

WITNESS
No.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Did you intend to fulfill or confirm prophecy?

WITNESS
No.

I recorded what occurred.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Mr. Josephus, you are not a Christian.

WITNESS
Correct.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
You did not write to affirm Jesus of Nazareth.

WITNESS
No.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
You recorded events after the fact.

WITNESS
As historians do.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And meaning others draw from your work is not your responsibility.

WITNESS
That is correct.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
No further questions.

SPOCK
The witness has testified to documented events, dates, and magnitude, without interpretation.

The court recognizes this testimony as historical corroboration only.

The testimony is admitted.

SPOCK
History testifies without faith. It records consequence without interpretation.

SPOCK
The court pauses to clarify scope.

The testimonies presented are not cumulative proofs, nor are they variations of a single argument.

They are distinct encounters examined independently and in sequence.

Connections, if any, are not assumed here.

They will be tested later—slowly, and under discipline—without being forced into coherence prematurely.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls Ken Burns.

SPOCK
Mr. Burns, you are called as a historian and documentarian.

You are not asked to testify to theological truth, metaphysical claims, or doctrinal authority.

You are asked to testify to documented history, recorded belief, lived practice, and observable consequence as preserved in the historical record.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

WITNESS (BURNS)
Yes, Your Honor.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
For the record, who was Ann Lee?

WITNESS (BURNS)
Ann Lee was the founding figure of the religious movement later known as the Shakers— formally, the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing.

She was born in eighteenth-century England into conditions of poverty and industrial hardship, and her religious convictions repeatedly placed her in conflict with civil and religious authorities.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What led her to migrate to America?

WITNESS (BURNS)
Persecution.

She and her followers were jailed, beaten, and harassed in England for their beliefs. America offered the possibility—though not the guarantee—of religious freedom.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What were the core teachings of Ann Lee and the early Shakers?

WITNESS (BURNS)
Radical purity, celibacy, confession of sin, communal life, equality between men and women, and strict nonviolence.

These teachings were not symbolic ideals. They were lived disciplines that governed daily life.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What position did Ann Lee and the Shakers take during the American Revolutionary War?

WITNESS (BURNS)
Absolute nonviolence.

They refused to fight for either side. That refusal made them targets—suspected by revolutionaries and condemned by loyalists.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How did Ann Lee die?

WITNESS (BURNS)
She died prematurely after years of physical hardship connected to persecution, imprisonment, and leadership strain.

SPOCK
The witness has testified to documented belief, lived discipline, nonviolent practice, persecution, and historical consequence.

The testimony is admitted for corroborative purposes.

SPOCK
When power restrains itself, history often responds with punishment rather than understanding.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls Michelangelo Buonarroti.

SPOCK
Mr. Buonarroti, you are called as a corroborating witness.

You are not asked to testify to theology, prophecy, or modern political application.

You are asked to testify to artistic intent, historical context, documented chronology, and the public meaning of your work as it existed at the time of its creation and display.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

MICHELANGELO
Yes, Your Honor.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and role for the court record.

MICHELANGELO
Michelangelo Buonarroti. I am a sculptor, painter, and architect of Florence.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
You were commissioned to sculpt the statue known as David. Is that correct?

MICHELANGELO
Yes. It was a public commission—ultimately placed before the Palazzo della Signoria, the seat of civic government.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
When was the statue unveiled to the public?

MICHELANGELO
September 8, 1504.

SPOCK
The court notes the date as historical fact. The calendrical correspondence to the Feast of the Nativity of Mary is acknowledged without inference.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.

SPOCK
The witness has testified to artistic intent, civic symbolism, historical placement, and documented chronology.

The testimony is admitted for corroborative purposes.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls Professor E. P. Sanders.

SPOCK
Professor Sanders, you appear before this court as a historian of Second Temple Judaism.

You are not asked to testify to theology, doctrine, miracles, or divinity.

You are not asked to interpret Jesus’ intentions beyond historical plausibility.

You are asked to testify to the political, religious, and symbolic world of first-century Judaism and what would have been intelligible within that world.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
Yes, Your Honor.

SPOCK
Let the record reflect: this testimony establishes historical context, not theological conclusions.

Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Around the time Jesus was born and during his childhood years, what were the religious and political conditions in Judea and Galilee?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
They were conditions of occupation and instability.

Judea and Galilee were under Roman control, governed through client rulers such as Herod the Great and later Roman prefects. Political authority was enforced by military power. Heavy taxation, land confiscation, and economic inequality were common.

Religion and politics were inseparable. Political power intruded directly into religious leadership, and religious institutions were forced to operate within imperial constraints.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
From the Bible and other historical sources, is it accurate to conclude that Jesus witnessed injustice at the hands of political and religious leaders?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
Yes. That conclusion is historically reasonable.

Roman governance was inherently exploitative. At the same time, segments of the local elite—including some religious authorities—benefited from cooperation with Rome.

Jewish texts from this period frequently criticize injustice, corruption, and abuse of power. Jesus would have grown up immersed in that reality.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
In what ways was Judaism co-opted by state power during Jesus’ lifetime?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
Most clearly through the Temple leadership.

High priests were appointed and removed by political authorities. This meant that the most sacred office in Jewish life was subject to imperial approval.

As a result, many Jews viewed Temple leadership as compromised—more concerned with maintaining order than covenant faithfulness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Yet Judaism still profoundly shaped Jesus. How would you describe Judaism in the first century?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
As a comprehensive way of life.

Judaism was not merely belief. It was practice, memory, law, Scripture, ritual, and hope. It shaped identity, ethics, community, and daily life.

Jesus was thoroughly Jewish, formed within this symbolic and moral world.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What role did the Jerusalem Temple play within Judaism in the early first century?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
The Temple was central.

It was the focal point of sacrifice, pilgrimage, forgiveness, and covenant identity. It also functioned as an economic and political center.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So the Temple was not peripheral?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
No. It was foundational.

SPOCK
The court recognizes the Temple as a civilizational center, not merely a religious building.

Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How would a public challenge to the Temple be understood?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
As a challenge to the established order of Jewish life.

It would not be received as abstract theology. It would be understood as destabilizing—religiously, politically, and socially.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Would it be accurate to say it would affect more than theology?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
Yes. It would affect authority, legitimacy, and social stability.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Was Second Temple Judaism shaped only by legal observance?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
No.

Law, Scripture, narrative, symbol, and ritual functioned together. Story and symbol were essential.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Were prophetic texts such as Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel still active in this period?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
Yes. They were read, interpreted, and regarded as authoritative.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Would symbolic language drawn from those texts have been intelligible?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
Yes. Symbolic language was familiar and widely understood.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What was the consensus of these prophetic voices regarding political power—both internal leadership and external empire?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
They consistently condemned corrupt leadership, exploitation of the vulnerable, and collaboration with oppressive power.

Their critique applied both to Israel’s leaders and to foreign empires.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Was there an expectation among some first-century Jews that God would intervene decisively against oppressive governments?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
Yes. Apocalyptic expectation existed within segments of Jewish society.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How would a prophetic figure speaking of judgment and restoration be received—by those in power and by those being oppressed?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
By those in power, such speech would be threatening.

By the oppressed, it would often be heard as hope.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Professor Sanders, many Jews criticized the Temple leadership. Correct?

WITNESS (SANDERS)
Yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And not all of them were executed.

WITNESS (SANDERS)
Correct.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So criticism alone does not guarantee lethal response.

WITNESS (SANDERS)
That is correct.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And the Temple continued functioning during Jesus’ lifetime.

WITNESS (SANDERS)
Yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So whatever Jesus may have said, the institution remained intact at that time.

WITNESS (SANDERS)
Historically, yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Then your testimony does not prove causation.

WITNESS (SANDERS)
It establishes context, not causation.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
No further questions.

SPOCK
The witness has testified, within strict limits, to historically established facts:

First-century Judaism existed under Roman occupation and political pressure.

The Temple stood at the center of Jewish religious, economic, and political life.

Temple leadership was subject to state influence and widely criticized.

Scripture functioned symbolically as well as legally.

Apocalyptic expectation and prophetic critique were culturally intelligible.

This testimony establishes historical context only.

It is admitted for corroborative purposes.

SPOCK
The court reminds the jury:

Context does not determine meaning.
But without context, meaning cannot be responsibly assessed.

Witness excused.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls Bart D. Ehrman.

SPOCK
Professor Ehrman, you appear before this court as a historian of early Christianity and the historical Jesus.

You are not asked to testify to theology, doctrine, miracles, divinity, or supernatural causation.

You are not asked to validate prophecy as predictive certainty.

You are asked to testify to historically plausible sayings, actions, motives, and the political logic of Roman execution.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes, Your Honor.

SPOCK
Let the record reflect: this testimony concerns historical plausibility, not metaphysical certainty.

Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and occupation for the court record.

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Bart D. Ehrman. I am a historian of early Christianity and the New Testament. My work focuses on what can be said about Jesus using standard historical methods.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
In this court, what does it mean to say a claim is historically defensible?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
It means the claim fits the available sources, coheres with the historical context, and aligns with how similar situations typically unfold—without requiring faith-based premises.

SPOCK
So noted. Method, not confession, governs this testimony.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
You have heard prior testimony establishing that the Jerusalem Temple was the religious, economic, and political center of Jewish life in the early first century. Do you accept that as a historical premise?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes. That is widely recognized among historians.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Within that context, would a public critique or symbolic action against the Temple have political consequences?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes. Such actions would not be heard as private religious opinion. They would be perceived as destabilizing—especially under Roman oversight.

SPOCK
The court restates its guardrail: the Temple is admitted as a civilizational center, not merely a religious building.

Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Without invoking theology, what can be said historically about Jesus’ conflict with Temple authorities?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
It is historically plausible that Jesus criticized Temple leadership and its administration.

Such critiques were already present within Judaism itself—concerns about corruption, collaboration with Rome, economic exploitation, and the burden placed on ordinary people.

Jesus fits within a recognizable tradition of internal prophetic critique—comparable to figures like Jeremiah or Amos.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So this is best understood as an intra-Jewish dispute?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes. That is the most historically responsible framing.

SPOCK
The court notes: criticism of leadership is not condemnation of a people. No anti-Judaism is admitted under the cover of scholarship.

Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Is it historically plausible that Jesus spoke of judgment on the Temple or Jerusalem?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes, it is plausible.

Multiple strands of Gospel tradition associate Jesus with warnings of coming catastrophe involving the Temple or the city.

From a historical standpoint, one can argue that Jesus anticipated upheaval and expressed that expectation in prophetic language.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
To be precise: are you claiming certainty?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
No. Historians rarely claim certainty. I am speaking in terms of probability and contextual coherence.

SPOCK
Guardrail reaffirmed: plausible does not mean proven.

Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Why would such language matter to Roman authorities?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Rome governed by maintaining order. Jerusalem was volatile. The Temple was a national and political symbol as much as a religious one.

A public figure drawing crowds and speaking of the Temple’s downfall—even without calling for violence—could be interpreted as agitation.

Rome punished perceived threats to stability.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So Rome crucified political destabilizers, not theologians.

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
That is a historically grounded way to put it. Crucifixion was designed to deter sedition and public disorder.

SPOCK
The court emphasizes: this explains crucifixion through governance and control, not theology.

Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How does this framework help the court understand why Jesus was crucified?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
It makes the outcome intelligible.

You do not need to assume claims of divinity for Rome to act.

If Jesus was perceived as proclaiming a coming “kingdom,” criticizing authorities, disrupting Temple activity, or predicting its fall—those are precisely the signals that could trigger Roman intervention.

Crucifixion fits that pattern.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
One final question for clarity.

If the Roman government had protections comparable to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution—guaranteeing freedom of speech and freedom of religion—would Jesus have been arrested and crucified for what he said and did?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Almost certainly not.

Jesus was not executed because his ideas were controversial in a modern free-speech sense. He was executed because Roman law did not protect speech or religious expression that was perceived as destabilizing to public order.

In a system with constitutional protections for dissent and religious critique, Jesus’ actions would likely have fallen under protected expression.

Roman governance did not recognize such protections. Stability took precedence over individual rights.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So his death was contingent on the legal system—not inevitable because of the content of his message alone?

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes. The same speech can be tolerated in one system and punished in another.

SPOCK
Let the record be clear:

This testimony does not speculate on alternate histories.
It clarifies how legal frameworks shape outcomes.

Proceed.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Professor Ehrman, the Gospels were written after Jesus’ death.

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE.

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
That is correct.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So predictions of destruction could be retrofitted.

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
They could be. Historians consider that possibility.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Then you cannot claim Jesus predicted anything.

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
I cannot claim certainty. I can claim plausibility based on context, multiple traditions, and historical pattern.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Rome did not crucify people for religious disagreement.

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Generally, no.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So Jesus was a political problem.

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
He was at least perceived as one.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And your testimony proves no ultimate meaning.

WITNESS (EHRMAN)
Correct. History explains why authorities act—not what events ultimately mean.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
No further questions.

SPOCK
The witness has testified, within strict limits, to historically plausible dynamics:

• The Temple’s centrality makes Temple judgment politically explosive
• Jesus fits an intra-Jewish tradition of prophetic critique
• Warnings of Temple destruction are historically plausible
• Roman crucifixion is best understood as a deterrent to destabilization
• Legal frameworks—not inevitability—shaped the outcome

No claims of divinity, supernatural causation, or predictive prophecy have been asserted.

This testimony is admitted for corroborative purposes only.

SPOCK
The court reminds the jury:

Explaining why power kills is not the same as justifying it.

History can make an execution intelligible.
Only conscience decides what follows from the knowledge.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls N. T. Wright.

SPOCK
Professor Wright, you appear before this court as a historian of early Christianity and Second Temple Judaism.

You are not asked to testify to miracles, divinity, or doctrinal truth claims.

You are not asked to assert supernatural prophecy.

You are asked to testify to symbolic language, historical plausibility, and how Jesus’ words and actions would have been understood within his Jewish world.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

WRIGHT
Yes, Your Honor.

SPOCK
Let the record reflect: this testimony concerns meaning within history, not metaphysical proof.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and field for the court record.

WRIGHT
My name is N. T. Wright. I am a historian of early Christianity, with particular focus on Jesus within Second Temple Judaism and the symbolic world of Israel’s Scriptures.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How does your historical approach differ from purely skeptical reconstruction?

WRIGHT
I take seriously how first-century Jews used Scripture, symbol, and story to interpret events.

History is not only about what happened, but about how actions would have been understood at the time.

SPOCK
The witness has testified to historically grounded symbolic meaning, including Kingdom language, Davidic legitimacy, the elevation of children, Temple judgment, and non-violent martyrdom.

No claims of divinity, supernatural causation, or predictive prophecy have been asserted.

This testimony is admitted for corroborative purposes only.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls John H. Walton.

SPOCK
Professor Walton, you appear before this court as a scholar of the Old Testament and the ancient Near Eastern world.

You are not asked to testify to modern events, supernatural causation, hidden codes, or predictive numerology.

You are not asked to validate theological belief.

You are asked to testify to how Scripture itself communicates meaning—particularly through concepts of order, sacred space, symbolic language, and prophecy as moral accountability.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

WALTON
Yes, Your Honor.

SPOCK
Let the record reflect: this testimony concerns ancient cognitive frameworks, not modern interpretation or application.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and field for the court record.

WALTON
My name is John H. Walton. I am an Old Testament scholar specializing in the ancient Near Eastern worldview and how the biblical texts functioned within that cultural context.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
In your work, what is the most common mistake modern readers make when approaching Scripture?

WALTON
They assume the Bible is answering modern questions—especially questions about causation, mechanism, and prediction.

Ancient texts were not written to explain how things happen. They were written to explain what things mean and how order is maintained.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How did ancient Israelites understand the world differently from modern Western readers?

WALTON
Ancient people were primarily concerned with order, not mechanism.

They asked whether the world was functioning as it should, whether justice was being upheld, and whether chaos was being restrained.

Violence, injustice, and corruption were understood as forms of disorder.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How do numbers function in Scripture?

WALTON
Numbers are symbolic markers of order and significance, not secret codes.

They shape attention. They do not explain causation or predict the future.

SPOCK
The court admits number symbolism as an ancient communicative convention, not as numerological prediction.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What did the Temple represent?

WALTON
The Temple represented God’s ordering presence in the world.

Corruption of the Temple signaled a breakdown in justice, leadership, and moral responsibility.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls Professor David Spiegelhalter.

SPOCK
Professor Spiegelhalter, you appear before this court as a statistician and expert in risk, probability, and uncertainty.

You are not asked to testify to theology, prophecy, symbolism, or meaning.

You are not asked to validate divine action, intention, or causation.

You are asked to testify to how statisticians distinguish randomness from structure, coincidence from pattern, and skepticism from methodological failure.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
Yes, Your Honor.

SPOCK
Let the record reflect: this testimony concerns evaluation, not belief.

Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and field for the court record.

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
David Spiegelhalter. I am a statistician specializing in probability, risk, uncertainty, and the interpretation of data under conditions of complexity.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
In your field, what distinguishes legitimate skepticism from improper dismissal?

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
Legitimate skepticism tests claims against stated methods.
Dismissal rejects claims without applying the method offered.

From a statistical standpoint, the latter is not evaluation.

SPOCK
So noted. This court recognizes procedure as a prerequisite for judgment.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Professor, the Adversarial Counsel has suggested that the Plaintiff’s experience reduces to pattern-seeking bias. Is that a sufficient explanation on its own?

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
No.

Humans are pattern-seeking, but that fact alone does not explain whether a pattern is trivial, coincidental, or structurally generated.

Pattern recognition explains attention, not origin.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Your Honor, the Plaintiff has already placed the following analogy into the record. I will restate it for evaluation.

Imagine a long road trip with children. To keep them engaged, I ask them to count red cars and white cars. They are intentionally looking for both—no preference, no bias.
After twelve hours, they report seeing ten red cars and one hundred white cars.
No one concludes this happened because they were looking. The explanation is external and structural: manufacturers produce more white cars because consumers demand them.
In other words, pattern recognition alone does not explain the pattern. The explanation lies in an underlying system that generates it.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Professor Spiegelhalter, from a statistical perspective, is this analogy valid?

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
Yes. It is.

The analogy correctly distinguishes observation bias from generative bias.
Looking does not create the imbalance. The imbalance arises from an underlying system.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So noticing a pattern does not explain the pattern.

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
Correct.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Professor, the Plaintiff has proposed a specific evaluative test. I will read it into the record verbatim.

My claim is not causation. It is structured coherence—coherence that resists easy dismissal as coincidence.
I am not asserting that these numbers are magical or causative, only that their behavior together is plausibly non-random. Here is how I invite the jury to evaluate that claim.

Consider a replication test.

First, choose five numbers derived from meaningful dates in your own life—births, relationships, marriages, or losses. Then ask whether those numbers naturally align with an established symbolic framework—religious or philosophical—that already assigns meaning to numbers.

Second, attempt the reverse. Begin with symbolic numbers drawn from an existing tradition—biblical numerology, if you choose—and see whether you can assemble them into a set that is both personally meaningful and independently anchored in real historical people and events, forming a coherent narrative rather than an arbitrary collection.

Third, test scope. Examine whether your numbers align not only with isolated stories, but with major turning points within a single historical framework. In my case, that framework was American history, and the numbers coherently aligned with its critical events over multiple centuries. You may find meaningful stories—but do they consistently converge at foundational moments, or do they scatter?

Fourth, examine convergence. Do those same numbers also align with the central narrative of the religious or philosophical tradition from which they were drawn? In my case, they did—across multiple, independent domains.

The focus here is not merely on the numbers themselves. The difficult element to replicate is the process: how the numbers were chosen, why they were chosen, and whether their symbolism allows them to function together—and independently— in a way that produces a consistent, constrained, and compelling narrative.

For example, I can demonstrate that before tragedy entered my life, these numbers were not associated with money or gain. I saved losing lottery tickets not as wagers, but as artifacts of affection and symbolism. Any argument that frames this pattern as post-hoc meaning-making ignores that documented prior intent.

What I am offering is not proof of destiny or divine causation, but evidence of structured coherence that resists easy explanation by randomness alone.

I encourage skepticism. I encourage testing. My claim stands or falls on whether this pattern can reasonably be dismissed as coincidence—or whether it warrants sustained attention.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Professor Spiegelhalter—is this a legitimate evaluative proposal?

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
Yes.

It is not proof, but it is a valid falsifiable framework.

It allows for replication, failure, and rejection.
That places it squarely within rational evaluation.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Does this test claim causation?

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
No.
It tests coherence under constraint, not cause.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Does it force belief?

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
No.
It forces work.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Professor, coincidence happens.

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
Yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And humans invent meaning afterward.

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
Sometimes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So this could still be coincidence.

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
It could be.
That is precisely why the test exists.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
You cannot prove non-randomness here.

WITNESS (SPIEGELHALTER)
Correct.
But neither can you dismiss it without applying the test.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
No further questions.

SPOCK
The court issues a limiting instruction, consistent with prior rulings.

This proceeding has repeatedly distinguished: plausibility from proof, interpretation from causation, skepticism from refusal.

Those distinctions govern here.

The Plaintiff has placed into the record a defined evaluative method, open to replication, reversal, and falsification.

Accordingly:

The jury may reject the claim.
The jury may dismiss the claim.

But the jury may not do so without applying the method offered.

A judgment rendered without examination of the stated test does not meet the standard of reasoned evaluation previously established by this court.

This instruction does not compel belief.
It compels procedure.

SPOCK
Refusal is not skepticism.
Skepticism requires method.

Court will proceed.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls Linda Colley.

SPOCK
Professor Colley, you appear before this court as a historian of Britain, empire, and political legitimacy.

You are not asked to testify to theology, divine right, or religious truth claims.

You are asked to testify to how power is stabilized, symbolized, and made acceptable over time—particularly through monarchy.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

WITNESS (COLLEY)
Yes, Your Honor.

SPOCK
Let the record reflect: this testimony concerns political legitimacy, not metaphysical authority.

Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and field for the court record.

WITNESS (COLLEY)
My name is Linda Colley. I am a historian specializing in Britain, monarchy, empire, and the ways political authority is constructed and sustained over time.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
In your work, how do you understand monarchy—as raw power or as something else?

WITNESS (COLLEY)
As performance and symbolism more than command.

Monarchies survive not because they exercise unlimited power, but because they persuade populations that their authority is legitimate, meaningful, and continuous.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What do you mean by “sacred legitimacy”?

WITNESS (COLLEY)
It refers to the way authority is clothed in ritual, tradition, moral symbolism, and continuity—often borrowing religious language or forms—without necessarily exercising direct control.

It is a way of making power feel natural rather than imposed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Let’s ground this in history. How did this operate under King Richard the Lionheart?

WITNESS (COLLEY)
Richard ruled England largely in absence. He spent little time governing directly.

Yet his authority endured because he functioned as a symbolic warrior king—through crusade, legend, and myth.

His legitimacy rested more on narrative than administration.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So power survived through story, not presence.

WITNESS (COLLEY)
Precisely.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How did this logic change under Queen Victoria and Prince Albert?

WITNESS (COLLEY)
They faced modern pressures—industrialization, democracy, mass politics.

Rather than asserting domination, they reinvented monarchy as moral, domestic, and exemplary.

They emphasized family, virtue, and restraint. This was a deliberate retreat from overt power in order to preserve symbolic authority.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So legitimacy was preserved by renunciation.

WITNESS (COLLEY)
Yes. Power survived by appearing less powerful.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What about King George VI?

WITNESS (COLLEY)
His legitimacy emerged through vulnerability.

He did not seek the crown. He accepted it under crisis—abdication, war, national fear.

His authority came from shared suffering and visible duty, not grandeur.

That humanization stabilized the monarchy.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
And Queen Elizabeth II?

WITNESS (COLLEY)
She perfected restraint.

Her reign was marked by silence, continuity, and refusal to intervene politically.

The monarchy endured because it no longer claimed governing authority—only symbolic coherence.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Based on this record, what pattern emerges?

WITNESS (COLLEY)
Monarchy survives when it relinquishes domination but maintains symbolic legitimacy.

When it insists on raw authority, it collapses.

Sacred symbolism stabilizes power—but only when it is carefully managed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Within this historical framework, how unusual would it be for a figure to reject both domination and sacred legitimacy?

WITNESS (COLLEY)
Extremely unusual.

Such a figure cannot be absorbed, managed, or symbolically repurposed.

They threaten not by force—but by exposing the contingency of power itself.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Professor Colley, monarchies still rule, do they not?

WITNESS (COLLEY)
They endure—but largely without governing power.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So symbolic legitimacy works.

WITNESS (COLLEY)
Yes—when it cooperates with existing structures.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And those who refuse cooperation?

WITNESS (COLLEY)
Historically, they are removed.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
No further questions.

SPOCK
The witness has testified to historically documented patterns:

Power survives by symbol rather than domination.
Legitimacy is performed, not inherent.
Authority endures when it adapts—and is threatened when its foundations are exposed.

No theological claims have been asserted.

This testimony is admitted for corroborative purposes.

SPOCK
Authority survives adaptation.
It does not survive exposure.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, you may call your next witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The court calls Shelby Foote.

SPOCK
Mr. Foote, you appear before this court as a historian of the American Civil War.

You are not asked to testify to theology, myth, or moral abstraction.

You are asked to testify to historical events, leadership decisions, and how moral authority functions under extreme pressure.

Do you understand the limits of your testimony?

WITNESS (FOOTE)
Yes, Your Honor.

SPOCK
Let the record reflect: this testimony concerns human choice under fire, not retrospective hero worship.

Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please state your name and role for the court record.

WITNESS (FOOTE)
Shelby Foote. I am a historian of the American Civil War. I study how battles unfold—but more importantly, how human beings behave when order is collapsing.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
In your work, do you treat battles as purely tactical events?

WITNESS (FOOTE)
No. Battles are moral laboratories. They reveal what kind of authority holds when fear takes over.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Set the scene for the court. What was at stake on July 2, 1863?

WITNESS (FOOTE)
Gettysburg was the hinge of the Civil War. Little Round Top was the hinge of Gettysburg.

If the Union line collapsed there, the entire army could have been rolled up.

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain commanded the 20th Maine at the extreme left flank—the end of the line.

There was nothing behind him.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Who was Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain?

WITNESS (FOOTE)
He was not a career soldier. He was a professor of rhetoric and languages—deeply shaped by classical ethics, Scripture, and the idea that authority exists to preserve order, not dominate others.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Did he command through fear?

WITNESS (FOOTE)
No. He commanded through persuasion, example, and moral clarity.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Describe the situation facing Chamberlain as the battle unfolded.

WITNESS (FOOTE)
His men were exhausted. They were outnumbered. They were nearly out of ammunition.

Wave after wave of Confederate soldiers attacked.

Retreat meant collapse. Surrender meant annihilation.

Chaos was imminent.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What options did Chamberlain have?

WITNESS (FOOTE)
He could retreat. He could wait to be overrun. Or he could act.

But the remarkable thing is how he acted.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Explain.

WITNESS (FOOTE)
He ordered a bayonet charge—not out of bloodlust, but out of necessity.

It was an act meant to restore order, not to unleash terror.

And when the Confederate line broke, Chamberlain accepted surrender.

Violence was used—but it was restrained by conscience.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What happened immediately after the charge?

WITNESS (FOOTE)
Many Confederates surrendered.

Chamberlain ordered his men to treat the prisoners humanely.

Authority reasserted itself—not through cruelty, but through discipline and mercy.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Did this pattern of restraint end at Gettysburg?

WITNESS (FOOTE)
No. It culminated at Appomattox.

When the Confederate Army formally surrendered, Chamberlain was selected to oversee the ceremony.

Instead of humiliation, he ordered Union troops to salute the defeated Confederate soldiers.

Not mockery. Not triumph. Recognition.

It was an unprecedented act.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Why does that matter?

WITNESS (FOOTE)
Because Chamberlain understood something rare: victory that humiliates sows future war.

Authority that honors dignity—even in defeat—makes reconciliation possible.

He did not end the war by domination. He helped end it by refusing vengeance.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
From a historical standpoint, why does Chamberlain matter?

WITNESS (FOOTE)
Because he shows that order is not preserved by brutality.

It is preserved by leaders willing to absorb risk, act decisively, and refuse hatred—even when surrounded by it.

He held the line not only geographically—but morally.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel, you may cross.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Mr. Foote, isn’t Chamberlain simply a romanticized hero?

WITNESS (FOOTE)
No. He was wounded six times. Romance doesn’t bleed.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
He still ordered violence.

WITNESS (FOOTE)
Yes. But violence as last resort, governed by restraint, is different from violence as appetite.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So you justify killing.

WITNESS (FOOTE)
I explain decision under collapse. Justification belongs to conscience, not historians.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
No further questions.

SPOCK
The witness has testified to historically documented events and leadership decisions.

This court recognizes the testimony as corroborative evidence of the following principle:

Order does not survive chaos by becoming it.

The testimony is admitted.

SPOCK
When the line breaks, authority is tested.

The question is not whether force is used—
but whether conscience remains in command.

SPOCK
This court is now in session.
Be seated.

SPOCK
AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM) may proceed.
(A beat.)
The inquiry begins.

When fear, grief, or despair are justified, can love still be deliberately chosen—and does that choice matter?

When fear, grief, or despair feel justified—when forgiveness feels unreasonable— when love feels difficult or even impossible—what will you choose?

This case is also not about rescuing tragedy from meaninglessness.

Sometimes love is chosen not because it is true— but because despair is unbearable.

SPOCK
Affirmative Counsel, call your first witness.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
The Plaintiff.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Explain how you understand prophecy in the context of this case.

PLAINTIFF
In the context of this case, prophecy is not understood as prediction or fortune-telling.

It is understood as a mode of attention that confronts the present moral moment.

Biblically, prophecy functions to awaken awareness, clarify responsibility, and invite response—especially in times of crisis, injustice, or loss. It speaks into the now, not primarily about the future.

As it is used here, prophecy is: a lens, not a timetable; a warning, not a forecast; an invitation, not a mandate.

Throughout Scripture, prophets spoke before, during, and after catastrophe—not to explain why events occurred, but to call people back to justice, mercy, humility, and love.

When future consequences were mentioned, they were conditional, not deterministic, and served to illuminate responsibility rather than remove choice.

This case adopts that same understanding.

Prophecy, as I am using the term, refers to a way in which attention is arrested—sometimes unexpectedly—in a manner that forces ethical clarity in the present.

It does not eliminate human freedom. It returns it.

It does not provide answers. It poses a question.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Before the lottery numbers were chosen, was there anything shaping how you were thinking about prophecy or meaning at that time?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

Before any lottery numbers were selected, I had been studying the Book of Revelation in depth. Not for prediction or timelines, but to understand how Scripture addresses fear, endurance, witness, and moral choice under pressure.

That study influenced how I understood prophecy generally—as something meant to orient attention and conscience in the present, not to forecast events.

Around that same period, I also saw the movie Knowing. While it was memorable and entertaining, it did not function as a framework or guide. At most, it introduced the general idea that numbers can capture attention—nothing more.

The primary influence on my thinking at that time was Scripture, not cinema.

And even then, I did not believe I was interpreting Revelation or applying it to events. I was simply engaged in study, reflection, and ordinary life.

That context existed before the numbers were chosen—and before any later tragedy occurred.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Before we move forward, the court needs clarity on one point. What role, if any, did God play in how you understood and responded to these events?

PLAINTIFF
I want to be precise here.

I am not claiming certainty about divine action, nor am I presenting proof of supernatural intervention. What I am describing is discernment—the human process of attending to meaning, conscience, and moral responsibility within a religious framework.

As a Christian, I understand prophecy historically as involving God, often mediated through human messengers and, in Scripture, sometimes through angels. That theological background shaped how I interpreted what was happening. It made me open to the possibility that my attention was being prompted—not forced, not overridden, but invited.

At no point did I experience compulsion, loss of agency, or instruction that bypassed reason or conscience. Every action I took remained voluntary, reflective, and subject to doubt.

If God was involved, it was not in the form of commands or predictions, but in the form Scripture most often describes: a quiet drawing of attention toward love, humility, and responsibility.

I did not act because I was certain God had spoken. I acted because I believed—fallibly, cautiously, and with skepticism—that I might be being invited to pay attention and choose love in the midst of uncertainty.

That belief itself is what is on trial here—not the existence of God, not the mechanics of angels, and not claims of supernatural proof.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please describe the personal events that led you to play the lottery using your own meaningful numbers rather than random selections.

PLAINTIFF
In early 2009, several ordinary but converging personal factors shaped the decision to play the lottery with non-random numbers.

At that time, I was engaged in an in-depth study of the Book of Revelation. My interest was not in decoding timelines or predicting events, but in understanding how Scripture uses symbolism to confront fear, endurance, witness, and moral choice. That study made me more attentive to how symbols—and particularly numbers—function in biblical texts as devices that draw attention rather than provide instruction.

Around the same period, I also saw the film Knowing. It is a fictional apocalyptic thriller in which numbers that initially appear random later align with dates and catastrophic events. I found the film entertaining, not instructional, but it did leave me with a general awareness of how numbers can capture attention without explaining meaning.

Separately, I was working in healthcare IT consulting at GE Healthcare. The work was demanding, and humor was a common way my team dealt with stress. During a lighthearted moment, a coworker picked up a novelty “Answer Me Jesus” toy on her desk and jokingly asked whether I would win the lottery so I could quit my job. The answer displayed was: “Love one another.” We laughed, and the moment passed. At the time, it carried no theological or prophetic weight for me.

Shortly after that, I realized that lottery drawings occurred on Fridays. That fact intersected with something personal: in 2009, my tenth wedding anniversary fell on Good Friday.

About a week before that date, I remember sitting quietly at my desk, reflecting on my marriage. I was not thinking about probability, prediction, or strategy. I was asking a relational question: if I were to choose numbers, what numbers would honor my marriage and the relationships most central to my life?

That reflection led me to select numbers rooted entirely in personal and relational meaning, not randomness, calculation, or prediction.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Please explain the specific numbers you chose, how they were derived, and what they meant to you at the time they were selected.

PLAINTIFF
The numbers were selected years before any later tragedy and were chosen entirely out of love and relationship—not fear, calculation, or prediction.

Each number corresponded to a meaningful personal event or relationship:

9/8 — a shared family birthday, belonging to my brother David and my sister-in-law Mary;
12/14 — the date of my first date with my wife;
12/20 — the date of our second date, when we went to see Titanic;
and a wedding anniversary that fell on Good Friday in 2009.

At the time the numbers were chosen, they held no theological or prophetic framework in my mind. They were simply markers of relationship, memory, and love.

I did believe—mistakenly—that despite impossible odds, the numbers might win the lottery. If that had occurred, my intention at the time was to give all the winnings away. That intention is documented in an email I sent to my mother four days before the drawing, on my birthday.

When the numbers did not win, the ticket was not discarded. It was preserved as a personal artifact—an expression of love and meaning—rather than as evidence of failure or loss.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
At this time, Your Honor, the affirmative counsel seeks to admit Exhibit B.

SPOCK
On what basis?

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Exhibit B consists of the original lottery tickets purchased by the plaintiff in 2009 and subsequent years, containing the numbers just described. They are offered to establish timing, intent, and preservation—not interpretation or causation.

SPOCK
Any objection?

SPOCK
Exhibit B is admitted for the limited purpose stated.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Mr. Brandvik, what are we looking at in Exhibit B?

PLAINTIFF
These are the original lottery tickets containing the numbers I’ve described. They were purchased on specific dates, including Good Friday in 2009, and later occasions. When they did not win, I kept them and placed them behind my wedding photograph. They were preserved as personal artifacts, not as proof of anything.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Before the lottery drawing occurred, did you communicate your expectations or intentions to anyone?

PLAINTIFF
Yes. Four days before the drawing—on my birthday—I sent an email to my mother.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What did that email express?

PLAINTIFF
It expressed my belief at the time that I would win the lottery and my intention, if that occurred, to give the money away.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Is that belief documented anywhere other than your memory today?

PLAINTIFF
Yes. The email itself documents that belief and intention at the time it was written.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Your Honor, we submit Exhibit C.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What happened when the numbers did not win?

PLAINTIFF
I was disappointed—both emotionally and in myself—for allowing so much hope for an outcome I knew was extremely unlikely.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How did that disappointment affect your behavior?

PLAINTIFF
It corrected it. I did not continue playing the lottery. I had no intention of playing again.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
For how long?

PLAINTIFF
For more than a year.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
During that time, did you interpret the numbers as prophetic or meaningful beyond personal memory?

PLAINTIFF
No. They remained a private artifact of a past experience, not an ongoing pursuit.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What caused you to revisit the numbers after that period?

PLAINTIFF
Events surrounding my sister’s wedding on November 20, 2010.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Was this decision driven by renewed hope of winning the lottery?

PLAINTIFF
No. I had already experienced disappointment and had set that expectation aside.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What was different this time?

PLAINTIFF
The experience was tied to remembrance, meaning, and participation—not outcome. The numbers no longer functioned as a wager, but as a marker of unfolding events I was trying to understand.

There were lots of strange coincidences and memorable moments around the wedding.

After the wedding, I felt very connected to God and reflected a lot about the importance of faith and family. Then I realized that 12/14 was coming up. It happened to fall on a lottery drawing day. That’s what prompted me to play the numbers again.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
So to be clear: this was not a continuation of the 2009 belief?

PLAINTIFF
Correct. It was a separate moment, prompted by different circumstances and approached with different expectations.

What remained consistent, however, was the theme of marriage.

I still embraced the idea of giving the money away, but this time I held no expectation of winning.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Did this renewed engagement with the numbers immediately lead you to interpret them as prophetic?

PLAINTIFF
No. At that time, the numbers carried only personal and symbolic meaning. I did not understand them as prophetic, nor was I seeking for them to function that way.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Then when did your relationship to the numbers change?

PLAINTIFF
Later—after the Sandy Hook tragedy.

That was the moment when numbers that had previously belonged only to private memory intersected with a public event in a way that arrested my attention and raised a moral question I could not ignore.

What confronted me was not interpretation or belief, but coincidence of detail:

The event occurred in the morning—9:00 a.m. Eastern, 8:00 a.m. Central. The date was December 14. Twenty children were killed.

Taken together—9, 8, 12, 14, 20—these details forced my attention, not because they explained anything, but because they disrupted my ordinary way of thinking.

I make no claim that these numbers caused, predicted, or explained what happened. I assign no meaning to the tragedy itself.

But the convergence of time, date, and loss redirected my attention—from faith, family, and ordinary life toward the reality of unbearable suffering— and confronted me with a deeper question: how a human being responds when attention is forcibly drawn to evil.

Scripture teaches that God—understood as love—is sovereign even in the presence of evil. In a broken world, that claim is often the greatest barrier to faith. I could not help but notice that an act of profound evil appeared to overlay numbers I had chosen entirely out of love. That tension raised a question I could not dismiss: whether this collision echoed a core biblical truth rather than explained an event.

That moment marked the change.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Describe your process of discovery regarding how these numbers later came to function symbolically—and drew your attention in ways you came to understand as prophetic.

PLAINTIFF
The process unfolded gradually, not all at once.

At first, the numbers remained what they had always been: personal and relational. They marked birthdays, courtship, and marriage. They carried emotional significance, not theological meaning. There was nothing prophetic about them in my mind.

Only later did they begin to function as attention markers.

In trying to understand why my attention had been so forcefully disrupted, I recalled the film Knowing, in which numbers that appear random later align with dates and loss. That parallel did not provide explanation or meaning—but it helped me recognize the experience for what it was: attention being captured, not answers being given.

I make no claim of predictive prophecy. This could have been coincidence. But coincidence alone does not explain why attention shifts—or what one does after it does.

I did not interpret the numbers as causing anything or foretelling tragedy. Instead, they redirected my focus toward a deeper and more difficult question: how human beings respond when confronted with profound loss.

In that sense, I came to understand them as prophetic—not because they revealed the future, but because they focused attention on the present moral choice between despair and love.

The numbers did not provide answers. They demanded attention.

And it was that sustained attention—not certainty—that ultimately led me to bring this case.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
How are these numbers being used in this case, and what limits are you placing on their meaning?

PLAINTIFF
The numbers are being used in this case solely as attention markers, not as explanations.

They are not offered to explain why tragedy occurs, to predict future events, or to prove divine intervention. They do not assign meaning to suffering, justify harm, or suggest that events were intended or orchestrated.

Their only function is to help frame a human process of attention and recognition. They mark moments where ordinary human experiences—love, relationship, memory, loss—intersect in ways that prompt reflection.

In this case, the numbers serve as a narrative thread that keeps the focus where it belongs: not on causes, mechanisms, or certainty, but on how human beings respond after tragedy or life challenges arrive.

They are offered as corroboration of attention, never as causation. They invite reflection, not belief. They point toward moral choice, not metaphysical claims.

Any meaning drawn from them belongs to the jury, not to the numbers themselves.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
What are you not claiming about these numbers, and what should the jury avoid inferring from them?

PLAINTIFF
I am not claiming that the numbers predict events, cause tragedies, encode secret messages, or reveal divine intent in a mechanical way.

I am not claiming that suffering is planned, deserved, or required for meaning to emerge. And I am not claiming that these numbers explain why tragedies occur.

The jury should not infer that numbers replace moral judgment, human responsibility, or rational inquiry. They do not override evidence, history, or common sense.

The numbers function only as attention markers. They draw focus—but they do not interpret events for us.

Any meaning that arises does not come from the numbers themselves. It comes from how human beings respond once their attention is captured—especially in moments of loss.

In this case, the numbers are offered with strict limits: as contextual corroboration, not proof; as invitation, not instruction; and as a framework for reflection, not belief.

The jury is free to dismiss them entirely. Their role is not to convince—but to invite attention to the choice that follows tragedy: despair or love.

SPOCK
Adversarial Counsel may cross.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
You’ve testified the numbers are not predictive and do not cause events. Correct?

PLAINTIFF
Correct.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And you agree humans are pattern-seeking by nature?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Including confirmation bias?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So once the numbers caught your attention, it’s possible you simply noticed them more—without any external significance?

PLAINTIFF
May I offer an analogy to clarify the limits of that explanation?

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And you cannot prove these numbers occur more often than chance allows?

PLAINTIFF
My claim is not causation. It is structured coherence—coherence that resists easy dismissal as coincidence.

I am not asserting that these numbers are magical or causative, only that their behavior together is plausibly non-random. Here is how I invite the jury to evaluate that claim.

Consider a replication test.

First, choose five numbers derived from meaningful dates in your own life—births, relationships, marriages, or losses. Then ask whether those numbers naturally align with an established symbolic framework—religious or philosophical—that already assigns meaning to numbers.

Second, attempt the reverse. Begin with symbolic numbers drawn from an existing tradition—biblical numerology, if you choose—and see whether you can assemble them into a set that is both personally meaningful and independently anchored in real historical people and events, forming a coherent narrative rather than an arbitrary collection.

Third, test scope. Examine whether your numbers align not only with isolated stories, but with major turning points within a single historical framework. In my case, that framework was American history, and the numbers coherently aligned with its critical events over multiple centuries. You may find meaningful stories—but do they consistently converge at foundational moments, or do they scatter?

Fourth, examine convergence. Do those same numbers also align with the central narrative of the religious or philosophical tradition from which they were drawn? In my case, they did—across multiple, independent domains.

The focus here is not merely on the numbers themselves. The difficult element to replicate is the process: how the numbers were chosen, why they were chosen, and whether their symbolism allows them to function together—and independently— in a way that produces a consistent, constrained, and compelling narrative.

For example, I can demonstrate that before tragedy entered my life, these numbers were not associated with money or gain. I saved losing lottery tickets not as wagers, but as artifacts of affection and symbolism. Any argument that frames this pattern as post-hoc meaning-making ignores that documented prior intent.

What I am offering is not proof of destiny or divine causation, but evidence of structured coherence that resists easy explanation by randomness alone.

I encourage skepticism. I encourage testing. My claim stands or falls on whether this pattern can reasonably be dismissed as coincidence—or whether it warrants sustained attention.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Isn’t it still true coherence can be constructed after the fact?

PLAINTIFF
Yes—human beings can construct meaning retrospectively.

But I distinguish arbitrary invention from constrained recognition. Early followers of Jesus revisited existing texts after a shocking event and recognized themes (the suffering messiah) that had not been emphasized before. The sheer number of Christ prophecies in the Old Testament led to attention.

The texts existed. The events occurred. What changed was attention—and that attention fueled action and consequence.

Retrospective recognition does not automatically invalidate meaning. In many historical cases, it is precisely how meaning emerges.

Statistical proof of causation is not my claim. I am claiming my prophetic experience resists easy explanations. It’s not ordinary. It is, in fact, remarkable.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So again—why should this court treat your view as more than personal narrative?

PLAINTIFF
Because a private experience intersected with a public tragedy. I offer no explanation—only a framework for human response after such events and possibly a means to prevent future events like it.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Isn’t it possible this merely comforts people without measurable change?

PLAINTIFF
Yes. People have free will.

But if even one act of violence could be interrupted, the effort is justified. Outcomes can be evaluated later.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
So this is not a conclusion—just a proposal?

PLAINTIFF
Yes.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
And you are not asking the court to declare it true—only reasonable?

PLAINTIFF
Correct. Attention—not proof—is required.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Then if people reject it, they lose nothing?

PLAINTIFF
History disagrees. Unchecked fear, grief, and despair—especially in power—often precede harm.

ADVERSARIAL COUNSEL (SATAN)
Are you blaming those who do not choose love for future violence?

PLAINTIFF
No. I am describing intervention before harm—not guilt after it.

Violence emerges from cycles of fear, rumination, isolation, despair. Interrupting those cycles reduces risk.

No coercion. No belief. Just interruption.

PLAINTIFF
I am a believing Christian.

According to the Jesus I follow, authority is exercised through love—not control. The red letters command interruption of hatred, retaliation, despair.

That authority is not exclusive. It is offered.

The jury need not believe me. Only consider whether despair has ever healed anyone.

PLAINTIFF
One question—answered simply.

Can you name a single life, family, or community that has been healed by remaining indefinitely in despair—without interruption?

Not distracted. Not numbed. Healed.

SPOCK
Motion denied. Despair has not demonstrated standing as a remedy.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
One final question, Your Honor.

SPOCK
Proceed.

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Plaintiff—what are you asking of the jury?

PLAINTIFF
Only this:

When fear, grief, or despair arrive—pause long enough to notice them, and consider choosing love instead.

That is all.

SPOCK
The record will reflect that the witness asks for attention, not assent. Witness excused.

SPOCK
Redirect?

AFFIRMATIVE COUNSEL (THE A-TEAM)
Just so the record is clear—are you asking anyone to accept your framework, or only to consider whether attention toward love can interrupt despair?

PLAINTIFF
Only consideration. Attention is the invitation. Choice remains free.

SPOCK
The Plaintiff’s foundational testimony is admitted in full.

Adversarial Counsel cross-examination is complete. Redirect is complete.

This court will proceed with corroborating witnesses.

The jury is reminded: There will be no verdict, only choice.