Does Neo-Thomistic theology teach it's necessary to believe in the existence of God, before believing in the historicity of Jesus' resurrection?

In a recent interview, Bart Ehrman appears to contradict himself in regards to how at one time he believed the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event. The video interview can be found here . Early on in the interview, at 3:52, he states, > ...even if Jesus rose from the dead, an historian cannot show it. And > absolutely think that’s true. In fact, I thought that was true when I > was a Christian, because I knew what history does and history cannot > talk about acts of God, because God is not susceptible to historical > research. However, at 6:26 minutes into that same interview, Bart Ehrman states: > I used to go around arguing that I could prove Jesus was raised from > the dead. One charitable way of resolving this contradiction is to propose that the early Ehrman viewed the New Testament somewhat along the lines of what Norman Geisler wrote in a critique of evidential apologetics: > …facts and events have ultimate meaning only within and by virtue of > the context of the world view in which they are conceived. Hence, it > is a vicious circle to argue that a given fact (say, the resuscitation > of Christ’s body) is evidence of a certain truth claim (say Christ’s > claim to be God), *unless it can be established that the event comes in > the context of a theistic universe.* (Christian Apologetics, p. 95) Did Moody Bible Institute, in the days when Bart Ehrman was a student there, teach an apologetic approach that was similar to the anti-evidential view that Norman Geisler taught? If so, is this view also that of Catholic neo-Thomistic apologetics in general? Or, is it peculiar to just Protestant fundamentalism?