DEBATE: John Dominic Crossan vs Mike Licona (Who was the Historical Jesus? 2018)

my name is Jonathan Mann I'm the president of  ratio Christy here at Kennesaw State University   rashia Christy is a student organization that  evaluates the truth claims of Christianity by   examining the evidence and we meet weekly  every Wednesday night at 7:30 p.m. in the   Social Sciences Building room 3030 we have guest  lecturers open discussions and everyone is welcome   to attend and engage in those discussions  that we have we are also honored to co-host   this event with KSU history club and this is a  student organization that provides students with   the opportunity to attend history related events  such as visiting local museums historical sites   and hosting group research projects this group  also connects students with professors from the   history department and aid students in building  their resumes for graduate school I would like to   thank the history Club the KSU history club for  all their support in making this event happen   I think dr. Kirwan Swint the Dean of the College  of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences   here at Kennesaw State I would also like to thank  the Student Activities budget Advisory Committee   for all of the generous support in making this  event happen I would also like to thank Rascher   Christi student officers for all of their efforts  in making this event a reality vice president Eric   Madson secretary and reservation delegate  Zach Bohannon Keaton Bromley our treasurer   Gracie Ernests are a marketing officer and our  faculty advisor dr. Brian Starks thank you all   now I would like to introduce our moderator  for this evening's dialogue dr. Brian Swain   dr. Swain is a historian of the ancient and  Mediterranean world and here at KSC he teaches   courses on the Greek Roman and medieval pasts  and on pre-modern history more broadly dr. Swain   received his doctoral training in Greek and Roman  history at the Ohio State University I've had   the pleasure of being a student in many of his  classes and I could personally attest that he   is the best professor in the history department  so would you all please welcome dr. Brian Swain good evening friends and welcome to Kennesaw State  University I'm Brian Swain professor of Greek and   Roman history and I'm honored to have been asked  again to serve as moderator for another important   discussion I would like to thank the student  organizations rokkyo Christie and KSU history   club for hosting this event and special thanks  also to to find students Jonathan Mann and Eric   Matson tonight's event is in a sense a product  of their determination to create something and   to share it with the broader University community  the two are graduating this December and it's   clear that they've made KSU a more intellectually  vibrant institution and that's no small thing so   well done boys thanks also the Dean Kerwin Swinton  the college of humanities and social sciences and   to say back for their generous support and finally  thank you to Renee Westland who vanquished the   dragon of bureaucracy to ensure that this event  actually happened tonight so because Christianity   is still a living religion and because the figure  of Jesus is so indescribably significant this has   had the rather curious effect of making Jesus  seem less historical less rooted in the past   itself less real but of course he was real he  existed he was a guy and he made his way in the   world and he was shaped by his world he was a  product of his times just like anybody was and   as such he can be studied as an historical figure  and tonight's discussion is not about the truth   of Christianity as a religion it's not about the  divinity of Christ it's about a guy and what he   did and what he said and just how exactly it is  that we know or don't know these things tonight's   not a debate or a contest our speakers and I have  agreed that this is to be a dialogue grounded in   the ethic of mutual respect and good faith our  speakers will probably disagree on a number of   things and to my mind that's a good thing and it's  a useful thing they're not going to be seeking to   score points or to pander but rather to advance  our collective understanding of just who Jesus   actually was because it turns out it's not so  easy to reconstruct the past from very ancient   and very difficult texts luckily though we have a  couple of guys with us tonight who have dedicated   their careers to studying these questions and  so it's my great pleasure to introduce them to   now dr. Michael okona is associate professor of  theology at Houston Baptist University he's a   New Testament scholar Christian apologists and  director of the ministry Risen Jesus he is the   author of several books including the resurrection  of Jesus and why are there differences in the   Gospels his scholarly work is noteworthy  for taking historical rather than purely   theological approaches to early Christianity  dr. Luke onna thank you for being here dr. John Dominic Crossan is emeritus professor  of Religious Studies at DePaul University he   is among the world's most eminent scholars  on the historical Jesus served as co-chair   of the now historically famous Jesus Seminar  and is the author of 28 books including the   best-selling the historical Jesus the life of  a Mediterranean Jewish peasant the birth of   Christianity and most recently how to read the  Bible and still be a Christian struggling with   divine violence from Genesis through revelation  dr. Crossan welcome and thank you for joining us finally we're all walking around with about  200 libraries of Alexandria in our pocket and   that's a miraculous and beautiful thing but turned  them off please first I would like to invite dr.   Luke ona up to deliver his opening statements  dr. Luke ona well good evening everyone weeks   ago that millions of Americans were intensely  engaged in the Senate confirmation hearings of   Brett Kavanaugh did you believe dr. Ford or did  you believe judge Cavanaugh and even if judge   Cavanaugh was innocent did you think he should  be appointed as a Supreme Court justice well as   we watch to all the senators talk about this  and discuss it and debate it and then finally   vote on it we noticed that their decisions there  how they answered those questions were almost   100% determined amongst party lines and then if  Facebook and Twitter and the discussions that   happened on the news networks are it would seem  that Americans were also split almost evenly on   this it seems like if you had leanings to the  political left you were against Cavanaugh being   a confirmed if you had leanings to the political  right you were for him being confirmed now how is   it that thinking people can all look at the same  data and arrive at radically different conclusions   I'll give you the answer in one word horizons now  horizons are how we interpret our world horizons   are comprised of factors involving our race gender  ethics nationality our political religious and   philosophical convictions the way we were raised  that the academic institutions we attended and the   very group of people whose acceptance and respect  we desire there's just no way around this horizons   are like eyeglasses that we all wear and they're  tinted and the lenses provide us with a somewhat   to store picture of our world again no way around  this that's just the way it is and that's the main   reason why we can all look at the same data and  come at different conclusions well that happens   with historians as well all historians are wearing  glasses doctor Crossan wears these glasses are his   horizons I wear them dr. Swain wears them and  every last one of you in here wear those glasses   as well the problem is is that most of us don't  realize that we have these glasses on and even if   we do we take very little make very little effort  to see that we can minimize the negative impact   these glasses have on our decisions it's these  horizons rather than the data that often inform   our decisions more than anything else and this  is going to impact how we study Jesus and what   kind of conclusions at which we arrive and it's  not just studies about who Jesus was historians   in that area it's also historians who deal in  non-religious matters for example your professor   professor Swain here is an expert in the late  Roman Empire now I would guess we haven't talked   about this but I would guess there are a lot of  issues that historians in your discipline discuss   and there's no consensus there's no consensus and  anything about Jesus either a lot of things about   Jesus so and it's not just historians it's also  in science scientists debate over a lot of issues   such as in the universe in which we exist do we  live in the only universe or is our universe just   one of many what about the laws of nature are all  the laws of nature defeasible or are there a few   laws that are indefeasible and what about those  who embrace a naturalistic evolutionary theory a   theory of a me but a man and everything's just  natural how did human consciousness come about   through naturalistic evolutionary processes even  those who would say we're all here by naturalist   evolutionary processes the whole thing they  disagree on how human consciousness evolved   and some like Colin McGann who was an atheist  philosopher of the mine who's taught at Oxford   he has said that the problem is insoluble there  is no an that we can't come to an answer it's too   difficult so even scientists despite the use  of scientific method there's many issues that   what they're not going to have a consensus on so  with this in mind I want to make three important   considerations to remember when we're discussing  Jesus in history the first one is just coming out   from what we just discussed and that is because  of the horizons of historians there will never   be a consensus on who Jesus is or who he was  because of the horizons of historians there   will never be a consensus on who Jesus was  the second consideration for us to look at   is there are three kinds of Jesus's the first  kind of Jesus we can call the historical Jesus   now that's the kind of Jesus that historians can  pretty much verify through using their tools and   apart from faith it's only what we can prove with  Jesus with a pretty good amount of certainty the   second Jesus is the Christ of faith the Christ  of faith we might say is the Christ we find in   our Bibles in our New Testament it's the Christ  who existed in the form the role of God who is   the creator and sustainer of the universe says  Paul it's the Jesus who came down and was born   of a virgin says Matthew and Luke it's the Jesus  who according to the Gospels performed divine   miracles and exorcisms and then was resurrected  and right now is at God's right hand and from   there he will come to judge the world someday  that's the Christ of faith now of course there's   a lot of things about the Christ of faith that  the historian will never be able to verify for   example a historian could verify that Jesus died  for take the statement Jesus died for our sins   historian could verify the historical element of  that that he died but historians still had the   tools to say whether his death atones for sins  there's just no way historian can do that so   things such as Jesus is deity that can't be part  of the historical Jesus we might the historical   Jesus might be able to be Jesus claimed to be  divinity but the historical Jesus could never   be he is divinity now that's the Christ of faith  and then the third Jesus is the real Jesus this   is the Jesus who lived in Judea and Galilee this  is the the actual Peart the real person who walked   and lived in that time and era area now the real  Jesus and the Christ of faith could be the same   person it could be that Jesus looks at the Christ  of faith that they were to meet one another and   Jesus would say yep that sounds like looking in  a mirror but it may not be that way it could be   that Jesus looks at the Christ of faith and says  well you got some things wrong there no I never   said that I never did that well I did something  like that I get really didn't feed 5,000 where'd   you get that from I fed 50 and the only reason is  because we prayed and a guy came along and he saw   us and he donated some food now that story isn't  so it may or may not be the same as the Christ   of faith now what historians do they take the  historical Jesus and you see what you can verify   the Christ of faith okay but if you took the  real Jesus and then the historical Jesus again   the historical Jesus is not a real figure it's it  would be it would look like you got a real Jesus   and then you have an emaciated stick figure who's  missing some parts with the historical Jesus all   right what historians are trying to do where my  interest lay is when we look at the historical   Jesus how much of the Christ of faith can we  verify and is there anything about the Christ of   faith that the real Jesus would look at and say  that's not true so those are the three kinds of   Jesus's the third in consideration for looking  at history and Jesus when we discuss this is   methods and results now what historians do is they  typically will surveyed the sources whether we're   talking to whatever the question is we look at the  sources to see what are the relevant sources and   what they say about that so we're gonna look at  the early literature we're gonna look at the New   Testament literature most if not all was written  in the first century and then we're also going   to look at the Apostolic fathers who were some of  them were the successors of the Apostles and we're   gonna look at the Gnostic literature we're gonna  look at some fragments that really may or may not   fit into some of the other ancient literature and  we're gonna see well how much of this is valuable   and how valuable is it how much of it may help  us when it comes to the historical Jesus we may   look at some of it and say okay well this may  not tell us about the historical Jesus but it   will tell us what some Christians were thinking in  this time even the skeptical New Testament scholar   Bart Ehrman would say if you want to know about  the real Jesus there's only one place to go and   that's the New Testament Gospels he says this is  not for theological reasons it's for historical   reasons pure and simple so we might look at what  people believed maybe that's a person's interest   in history or how theology developed over time  my interest is well can we prove about Jesus   the historical Jesus what is that all right so  we're looking at the sources we're gonna look   at we're gonna bring in some criteria how do we  verify things about Jesus we're gonna bring in   some criteria these are called the criteria of  authenticity these are nothing magical they are   common-sense principles that are named different  things by different scholars some of the criteria   of authenticity are rejected by scholars like  one that was used years ago that hardly anyone   uses today is called the criterion of double  dissimilarity no one uses that but they will   use a handful of criteria that have proved to  be pretty common-sense stuff and have yielded   some good results these are things like well if  we're looking at some sources we're gonna value   a source that was written by an eyewitness a  little more we're gonna give it a little more   weight than we would a source that's not written  by an eye it's common sense right if we're looking   at a source that's written close to the events  it purports to describe that's going to have a   little more weight to it then one that was written  100 200 300 years later if a source reports some   things that are kind of embarrassing details  embarrassing to the altar or the movement that   alters Roth er is writing for it has a better  chance of being true perhaps because why would   you make up something that's going to embarrass or  discredit you or if there are multiple independent   sources that are reporting the same event if they  can be shown to be independent in the report the   same thing it's more likely to be reporting a  true event especially if one of those sources   are an unsympathetic source versus a sympathetic  source right so these are just again common sense   principles there's nothing magic about them and  you know by using those historians are able to   construct a historical Jesus now some of the  results of that would be Jesus was baptized by   John the Baptist Jesus came on the scene he he  believed that he had a special relationship with   God who had chosen him to usher in his kingdom  that he taught in parables that he performed   deeds that astonished crowds and that both he  and his followers regarded as divine miracles   and exorcisms and that Punch's Pilate the Roman  governor crucified him either in April the year   30 or April 33 and Jesus died as a result  we're chilling 100 percent of historians of   Jesus grant these as facts using these criteria  they they say these things actually happen about   Jesus whether they're atheist moderate liberal  conservative Christians Jewish scholars they   agree on these things and then historians of  Jesus will typically there are other things   that they claim are pretty certain about Jesus  but there may not be a universal consensus on   those let me just say one thing I'd be remiss  if I didn't mention that there is movement among   some New Testament scholars to move away from  the criteria of authenticity saying they really   don't have that much value some even suggesting  that we jettison the criteria altogether I think   these scholars though well-meaning are seriously  misguided there are a number of reasons why they   go with this but one of the reasons one of the  main reasons is that the criteria have not led   to the desired consensus but I think that such  an expectation was flawed and misguided from   it's very beginning again historians there's  never going to be a consensus on Jesus because   of the disparity of horizons you don't have  a consensus among historians even amongst a   lot of non-religious things like ancient late  Roman Empire you don't have a lot of consensus   on many things within science so we shouldn't  expect a consensus when it comes to Jesus other   reasons as well but I don't have a lot of time to  discuss them what I would say is to those who say   we should abandon the criteria that if we do that  do you believe that Jesus died by crucifixion and   if so how do you get there without the criteria  so in wrapping this up I would say that we have   to remember there's never going to be consensus on  Jesus remember that those are those three types of   Jesus the historical Jesus the Christ of faith  in the real Jesus and the third we look at the   methods and results there are certain things we  can't that can be known about Jesus apart from   faith and just using the tools of historians dr.  Crossan and I we've done historical work I've done   a lot of work special in the resurrection he's  done a lot of work he's written a thick book   called the historical Jesus other books on this  so we are interested in historical matters we have   radically different pictures of who Jesus really  was and so I'm looking forward to this evenings   dialogue as we go through these and you'll see  the differences that we have and our different   approaches to those and where the differences  come in why those differences may exist thanks okay so I worried about myself if you will and  my presuppositions this name John Dominic   Crossan always sounds so pretentious to me  why do you need three names well the reason   is important for tonight as well when I was  16 years of age I entered the Roman Catholic   a 13th century monastery and when you do that  like in the Bible when you get a new vocation   they wipe out your past give you only a future  so I went in as John Crossen that's still what's   on my passport driving license and what the TSA  people know me by I became brother Dominick 19   years later having realized that celibacy  is vastly overrated I decided to leave the   monastery and the priesthood but I was taking  it all with that exception with me so I put   Dominic in the middle it has no legal standing  whatsoever my government knows me as John my God   knows me as Dominic at the moment they're not  on speaking terms so there's no confusion out   of that monastery I took years of studying  Thomas Aquinas and it formed my mind as an   intensely dialectical mind for better for worse  here's what I mean by a dialectic take a coin   out of your pocket try and look at the two sides  at the same time you can't do it without mirrors   and self we're not good at dialectic dialectic is  any two things that can be distinguished but not   separated without getting a mess yeah I suppose  you can cut a coin in two and see what you get   so I learned from Thomas Aquinas to watch out  for reason and revelation Aquinas could spend   as to where the morning reading Aristotle and the  afternoon reading the Bible and have no problems   with supper so reason and revelation are for me  a dialectic distinguishable of course separable   no without destroying both now I really mean that  you can't say well yeah yeah yeah let's of course   reason of course of course what so whenever those  gets separated by the way when they really gets   separated very often people get killed I found  our Troy history so I'm very very very careful   about separating them that is simply the same with  faith and history as Mike said of course people   can disagree on facts there are even people who  are your scholars who argue Jesus never existed   I think the major consensus is that's wrong but  it's there so we have to get facts with some   agreement but then we get interpretations every  incident involves a fact with all the arguments   about that and an interpretation with all the  arguments about that they are a dialectic and   we ain't good at deciding where is the fact that  where is the interpretation my interpretation is   a fact your interpretation is a myth ok so watch  for dialectic if anyone cares to understand me   that is as far as I can understand myself profound  realization reason and revelation I got it from   years studying Thomas Aquinas I took it from the  monastery with my name as a word faith they will   not disagree faith in history unless we get either  or both of them wrong because they both come from   God Thomas was absolutely certain of that he was  never scared with arguments from reason that look   at another distinction the distinction between  the metaphorical and the literal don't confuse   them between the metaphorical and the real that's  a fatal mistake made after the it's the dark side   of the Enlightenment it's the in document that  is the other side of the Enlightenment the loss   of metaphor metaphor creates reality if you start  living by it bad metaphor bad result good metaphor   good results now for example before Jesus ever  existed and had he never existed there was a human   being in the Mediterranean world of the first  century and the preceding one whose titles were   Lord son of God God incarnate savior of the world  even redeemer from sin and of course I'm talking   about Caesar the Augustus and when you hear Caesar  the Augustus think of Jesus the Christ Augustus is   not his family name it's his title the one to be  worshiped from Seba my now is that metaphorical or   literal did a Gustus get up in the morning and say  God wants breakfast on the other hand it would be   very unwise to say you do understand your Imperial  highness you're just a metaphor I wouldn't do that   because it's real in that a mysterious way that  you would never say it's just a metaphor because   it's creating the reality of the Roman world I  always think that child born of Julius Caesar   and Cleopatra called caesarian little Caesar when  the Stranglers ordered by augustus approached them   at the age of 17 to execute him did he say I'm  just a metaphor metaphor creates reality and if   you can say that's just a metaphor you've lost the  game before you begin so those are the dialectical   forms that for my mind they are fuse mics that  these are the glasses of my mind so when I turn   to Jesus when I turn to Jesus as a historian first  I know but didn't somebody say when Jesus started   talking or say to Paul but Paul we be part of  Lord Son of God Savior of the world what do   we want another one for our is that the profound  revolution there was Jesus and Christianity that   the Romans would have said our program is peace  of course the Pax Romana peace through victory   that's how we get peace that is our great  metaphor and look it's creating the reality   of our successful Empire and Jesus coming out  of the Jewish tradition would have said you get   peace through justice all you get from victory is  long something like the eye of the hurricane that   maybe makes you think everything is fine for the  second wall arrives so I want to ask always when   I hear anything about Jesus I can ask if you  want is it metaphorical or literal you can ask   do I think they made that distinction do I think  I'm making that distinction but be very clear if   I ever say something is metaphorical I mean it is  far more important and powerful than the literal   the literal no matter how important that is is  never more important than a metaphorical do me so we've all agreed that the next 40 to 50 minutes  or so are going to cover about four questions it's   going to be it's not simply simply not enough  we're all gonna leave here wanting more but   that's that's going to be inevitable in some way  because the fact that you're here on a Wednesday   night instead of binging your Netflix means  that you're you're seekers of knowledge and   so inevitably you're going to be unsatisfied but  we're going to cover some ground to some extent   but before we get to those four questions I want  to pose a preliminary inquiry to our speakers and   I'll start with with with you dr. Luke Kona could  you just to establish some kind of common ground   and again on our ethic of good faith and mutual  respect could you establish a few points that   you agree with dr. Crossin maybe a few points  that you think are worth further consideration   yeah I think primarily I would say the the idea  of metaphor being powerful it being important I   completely agree there I also agree that metaphor  can in some sense be more important than literal   depending on what we're talking about I think it  can I mean you can just state the the dry cold   hard facts of literal in literalness and those are  important but if you look at the metaphor and what   the meaning is behind those that can be moving and  even more important you know we're both historians   we both have spent time looking at historical  Jesus and and trying to determine things did   Jesus do these things you you've gone further  than that and I applaud that you get into well   what does this mean how do we apply this in our  lives and I see that first you have the question   that the historian asks did it occur and then you  go further than that you say okay but what does   this mean that's theology and then almost like the  pastoral how does this apply in my life what are   the practical implications for that so it's kind  of like you're you're wearing three hats historian   theologian and pastor and this so um you know  I I can appreciate that and I love the spirit   and what you give things to but for me even as a  historian if all you've got to say is here's what   Jesus said I think it's bad history because you  have the least safe and he's making a claim on the   human race and I think it's absurd you know but  if somebody makes a claim like Jesus definitely   is making a claim he's not just a nice guy Pat's  little babies tells of the stories he is making a   claim on the human race and the meaning of life on  earth as a word so if I'm as a historian reporting   him I have to at least say that and then of  course they get me to fight the Romans going   to get the executed because they're in charge of  making so I think it's very bad history I think   we agree when this it's a very bad history to make  it seem as if Jesus was I don't know if I might be   insulting somebody to say you're the philosopher  because the Romans didn't crucified philosophers   he he was making a claim on the meaning of life so  even as a historian I must report that then as a   Christian I say and I think he got it right that's  me as Christian but you know if I was dealing with   a historian who was say a committed atheist or  something we should be able to agree yet no Jesus   didn't just say be nice to one another he didn't  even just say love one another he said you know   one another don't belittle me so I mean I think  that's a powerful base that mustn't be lost in any   debates between us how about some points in dr.  Luke owners opening statements that yes I would   I would agree profoundly with wit there have to  be criteria I I don't know I don't understand it   if somebody says well it becomes like a Rorschach  it's just what do you feel about it there have to   be criteria and I think we would be using exactly  the same criteria ourselves and using it so there   are criteria the distinction between Jesus you  could say Jesus and the Christ in the same way   that you could say Augustus is is like sorry  Caesar is his name Augustus is his more than   title so I want to be careful though I don't want  Jesus to go off when way and Christ go off the   other way might one person in there but I would  almost say crudely Jesus is a fact crisis and   interpretation or Jesus's history crisis theology  but Jesus himself is talking feel hugged you so I   don't know how to do history with Jesus and avoid  theology I do know how I could deny his theology   or affirm his theology are livid but I wouldn't  know how to do a good historical explanation of   Jesus if I if I let him drift totally away good  thank you both question one doctor lacunae we'll   start with you do the Gospels contain eyewitness  testimony oh I would say yes and I would say yes   definitely I would especially say that would  be the case with mark and and John mark you've   got let's go with mark here because almost  everyone agrees that's the first gospel to have   been written so we've got Pappy as' the guy named  Pappy as' and both Irenaeus and Eusebius say that   Pappy as' was affiliated with one of the Apostles  whether it was John the son of Zebedee or another   minor disciple named John the elder of course is  disputed but they were he was affiliated with one   of Jesus disciples in fact in his chronicon you  have Eusebius putting happiest Polycarp clement   or yeah clement with the Apostle John right  after the 219th Olympiad and right before the   two hundred and twentieth Olympiad and the 220th  Olympiad was the Year 101 so he says Nerva was he   served for a year in a few months and then he died  and then I think it was Trajan that took over and   he served I think it was for 19 years and it was  during nervous time that John the son of Zebedee   was released from exile and then he says that his  successors you know the episodic successors or or   John's disciples would have been like happiest  and Polycarp and you need some of these folks so   that seems Eusebius seems to be putting happiest  before the Year 101 now whether peppiest wrote   his interpretations of the five volumes of the  interpretations of Jesus discourses we don't   know it could have been a couple decades later  but he would have gotten his information from   this disciple of Jesus during the first century  and Poppaea says that mark Poppaea said that the   disciple this decide well Jesus told him that mark  got his information from Peter he wrote down what   he remembered Peters saying so here we've got this  guy Pappy as' who heard directly from one of Jesus   disciples that Mark was writing down what he heard  directly from Peter that's pretty remarkable and   then the majority of scholars today Johan ein  specialists do agree that John even though they   don't think it was John the son of Zebedee there  are a few of us who do but even though they don't   think it was John the son of Zebedee they do think  that the author of John's Gospel was either one of   Jesus minor disciples or that the author used one  of Jesus disciples perhaps John the son of Zebedee   or a minor disciple as one of their primary  sources behind that gospel so yeah we've got   some good evidence that there's some eyewitness  testimony in the Gospels and I qualify it first   of all we say the four Gospels and I say it too  there's only one gospel the Gospel according to   that's profound for me it's not the Gospel of  Mark Matthew Luke John it's the Gospel according   to there's only one gospel which is Jesus four  verses I think Paul would say my mind too so   five verses okay fibers gospel is not a fact  it's an interpretation good news if if to take   your example before I said good news Cavanaugh is  on the Supreme Court fair enough I have a fact he   is and have an interpretation doesn't mean it's  wrong but somebody else could say bad news is on   it those are the two interpretations of a fact  so gospel is an interpretation now if I looked   at Matthew Mark Luke and John from scratching you  nothing about it my first wouldn't is must before   eyewitnesses trying to tell you know what happened  and look they come up kind of pretty much with the   same general structure so yeah these must be four  eyewitnesses but then I can I actually study it   and now as an heir of a hundred years of study I  find out no mark is copied by Matthew and Luke but   I thought Matthew was supposed to be the one who  was there and he has no trouble changing mark with   a certain consistency not just at random data  from Luke so if I put them in parallel columns   and read them that way I have to face this now I  don't think that's any way to write the gospel I   think there should be only one version in there  but tation and Martian in the second century   thought that too they should be all collapsed into  one or get rid of them all and keep only one he   wanted Luke so it is a weird thing that we only  have one Jesus would have four interpretations   of Jesus all of it your good news so I'm kind  of stuck with that I don't think it's any way   to recognizable to be honest with you certainly  not the way yes let me get to that then so what   you were describing there by the way in a court  of law it's called hearsay not eyewitness but my   problem is I'm sure there's there's more sex that  could be said about any author that could be said   about Plutarch it could be said about sweet Onias  well if they're claiming like for example Jesus   said no in mark okay mark is the first one so  let's say he's got it right let's say he was an   eyewitness how dare Matthew and Luke change it why  when we don't think it's a witness who think it's   gospel and know what use Matthew is willing to  say who are you mark this is value I would guess   that you're probably like most and I might even  agree with it that the titles the Gospel according   to Matthew according to mark etc weren't in the  original so what we have here are four biographies   of Jesus and the question is even and even if  Matthew is using mark which he most certainly   is in my opinion as well the compositional text  books written by Theon and homogenise and the   phoniest and quintillion they all say you should  change things you should paraphrase and we see   this is exactly yeah because possibly in this  case the compilers of the New Testament had the   bad taste to keep mark in there so we can see them  at work look I can see Matthew change him but we   can say dude we can see Plutarch change Plutarch  who changes Plutarch he's doing exactly what he   should have done is a good literary biographer and  historian yes he's not making anything like the   claims about his antagonist protagonist whoever  it is that's a Alexander anything like they're   making me about Jesus but why is that relevant  they're still following the same rules and again   the question we're trying to discuss here is do  the Gospels contain eyewitness testimony and even   if Matthew did change some things that doesn't  mean that or more John or whoever doesn't mean   they're not that that their Gospels do not contain  eyewitness testimony you know they contain become   synonymous to weasel words for me there has to be  somebody in there but there is no way when I read   the crucifixion for example and like you I mean  historically as sure as anything is that Jesus   was crucified when I read for example let's say  the last words I have no way of telling whether an   eyewitness they're heard Jesus actually say my God  my God why hast thou forsaken me are any the other   words you want to use and everything when I read  them tells me it looks like the authors of the   gospel made up these as the appropriate last word  from their Jesus in their gospel okay so I can see   why Luke would say your father forgive them they  know what to do and Luke would and sorry and John   would certainly not say my god my god no way is he  going to say that come back so but then these as   a witness but but then the question changes then  from I mean what you're saying there that could   answer the question are the Gospels everything in  the Gospels every detail the result of eyewitness   testimony every single detail the result of  either witness testimony I don't think that's   the question though I would not be arguing that of  course right question is you can't tell which is   and which is sometimes yeah I would guess I would  agree with you some times maybe like the the words   of the cross we may not be able to verify I mean  there's a lot of things in the Gospels and in   Plutarch's way Tonio Salas cicero all these that  we can't verify i agree with that but again that's   a different question than does the Gospels do the  Gospels contain eyewitness testimony I say every   gospel writer wants to make a witness eyewitness  is the least of their concerns oh there's a living   witness a mighty really well what do you do with  John's multiple statements that say hey he and in   this disciple what is is saying these things and  we know that what he is saying is true or Luke's   and that these were passed along down to us from  the eyewitnesses and the servants of the word I   mean it seems like at least for Luke and John it's  it's it's very important about the eyewitness it   is just a moment Luke says eyewitness who became  who became ministers of the word I am absolutely   certain there has to be I witnessed in there  but I have no idea how you could possibly as   a historian now which is which since the authors  themselves were saying it is the meaning of this   that's important and I have no compunction I the  author about saying Jesus said this if it makes   the gospel here say that again please if Jesus is  dying on the cross I'm trying to imagine the mind   of Luke so and I wanted to say what's the most  important thing I want him to say as he goes I'm   going to make up look I'm going to make up Father  forgive them for they know not what they do that's   what I want now if I only had Luke only had look  I don't know how I couldn't doubt that why would   I doubt that somebody must have been there one  of the women in the heard Jesus say that and it   was beautiful so I only know that but I start  comparing the four and try and understand what   they're up to really that they're after gospel and  if there are eyewitness accounts which must surely   be they are so irrelevant for them that there's  no way as a story and I can say absolutely for   sure that's eyewitness I'm for most for most what  you said almost all of it I'm with you on that   we can't verify everything historically in the  Gospels sometimes it's difficult to know if that's   based on eyewitness testimony or all that stuff  I agree with that but then the crucifixion for   example I get from Josephus an Tacitus as well and  that is very basic for me because he's crucified   and his followers aren't rounded up which tells  me he's crucified from the Roman point of view for   nonviolent resistance violent resistance you Chris  away them all 10 minutes that was that's a miracle   okay question question two we got one I'll start  with dr. crossing who did Jesus think he was okay   honestly I can't attend to cringe when I hear the  question I do because it was the great question   of the 19th century his self-consciousness  I don't have a clue her I don't know my own   self-consciousness and even if I told you I don't  see why you should believe that any wardens what I   write I kind of know what I'm doing I kind of try  and see where I got it I know what my interests in   my self-consciousness that's for other people to  tell me what I what I see clearly about Jesus and   this is the massive consensus of scholarship Jesus  proclaimed the kingdom of God and I would argue   he claimed that the kingdom of God is not coming  soon like John the Baptist but is already present   if and when you take it upon you you people and  enter it you people like me because you can't   have a kingdom of one so I'm convinced that that  is really what Jesus was about and if you said are   you the Messiah Jesus he would probably have said  that's a nice way of avoiding what I've just said   are you going to enter the king of God yes or no  but I'd like to know Jesus are you the Messiah I   think Jesus absolutely avoided that because as  far as I can tell as a historian the consensus   in the first century of who the Messiah was  would be a transcendentally endowed military   leader somewhat like David let's take him from  John Collins not me so what Jesus was was kind   of counter to the consensus idea of what a messiah  was among the ordinary people that he's talking to   I'm not talking about what you could get from  the Old Testament so I think he's proclaiming   the kingdom of God and he's not that interested in  himself he's much more interested in the message   the vision and in your participation in it so  I don't think he tells us I have no problem by   the way with somebody listening to Jesus and say  and I have no problem with somebody looking at a   coin and saying you know I think he's the son of  God that's my type of son of God not this jerk   here in this coin so any title you want to give  to Jesus I cannot prove he ever used them but I   have no problem as a historian in that matrix from  giving him the highest titles possible way beyond   prophet or Messiah even the son of God it's and  other coins I would look at of course I'm gonna   part with Dominic here I think and it is kind of  difficult cuz we're looking at what did Jesus say   publicly verses with his apostles in private and  what did he say explicitly verses implicitly and   then what he did and how people interpreted him  so when I look at the you know I think Dominic's   correct about the coins art so Caesar was called  the Son of God he was called the savior of the   world in fact there were kings back then they were  called King of Kings and Lord of before Jesus so   these aren't titles that were just unique to Jesus  okay however did Cesar's did they really think   that they were gods well I think we've got some  evidence that guy's Caligula sand Nero did I don't   know if the others did we really think that they  were God when the Senate conferred divine honors   on them I mean how can senators who are mere  humans confer divinity on someone when they're   human you know humans can't confer divinity so how  much they really believed that they were divine   one thing when we come to Jesus if if all we had  were the virgin birth accounts in Matthew and Luke   then I'd kind of go with that and say maybe this  is what the Christians meant but we got more much   more than that you've got Paul who says that  Jesus in 1st Corinthians 8:6 he's the creator   of the universe you have in in Colossians 1 16  and 17 it says he's the creator and sustainer of   the universe yeah Paul in Colossians 2 that says  Jesus existed in form in the role of God prior to   his incarnation and then he comes down okay and  then Jesus is always known as a powerful miracle   marker whether you want to tribute those miracles  to psychosomatic things he was still virtually   every scholar who studies the stuff acknowledges  that Jesus performed deeds that astonished crowds   and that both Hina's followers regarded as divine  miracles and exorcisms so they have it seems like   Paul is out there saying in pretty clear terms  that Jesus is the creator sustainer of the   universe he existed in the form the role of God  now we can tell that Jesus or Paul we can verify   that he's preaching the same Gospel message as the  Jerusalem apostles he went up to them in Galatians   two ran to buy them got it confirmed by them so  if Paul's preaching these things his basic gospel   message certainly that would have had to include  something as basic as who Jesus was as identity   and it seems like this is what the Jerusalem  apostles were preaching so we gotta ask him where   did these pious monotheistic Jews get the idea  that Jesus is God and I can't think of any other   plausible reason than that Jesus himself made  claims to this effect and so then when we come   to the Gospels who say do they give us any signs  of this and you come to mark the first gospel its   biography it's there to illustrate illuminate who  Jesus is through his deeds what are his deeds well   it opens up as Isaiah the prophet said the voice  of one crying in the wilderness prepare the way   the Lord make straight his paths it's not Jesus  preparing the way of God it's John the Baptist's   preparing the way for Jesus mark chapter 2 he  heals a paralytic and forgives his sins the   Jewish leaders said it's blasphemy only God can  forgive sins chapter 3 they say it's his exorcisms   as Satan cast out Satan and Jesus says no it's  me binding the strongman Satan and plundering   his kingdom from souls chapter 4 he calms the wind  the Old Testament says something God does chapter   5 he raises the dead something the Old Testament  says only God does chapter 6 he walks to the water   something the Old Testament says only God does the  whole Gospel of Mark is painting this portrait of   Jesus as God through his deeds so this is what  the earliest Christians are saying this is based   on the eyewitness testimony of what Mark gets  from Peter of what happened so yeah I think he   whether he said things implicitly or explicitly  or through his words his deeds or both I think   he claimed to be more than Messiah claimed to  be God he claimed to be God's uniquely Divine   Son and that's quite different than the Senate  saying Caesar is the son of God I would accept   totally as the best way any way ever says in the  New Testament even Patrick Paul what John says in   the prologue that the Laguz was with God from all  eternity and the logos became incarnate in Jesus   I think it's it might cause confusion say Jesus  was there from all eternity as if he was poised   in heaven waiting for for BCE I think basically  good translation of the log-off's will be the   dream of God I think that was there from all  eternity it becomes incarnate in Jesus but I take   more seriously than you would that Caesar is God  because I think it is the metaphor the creates the   Roman Empire and when they said Jesus is God it's  a shorthand if you know what that means I have no   problem saying it by the way but if you take it  literally then you read well you mean God died at   3 p.m. on a Saturday or something and the world  ran on fine for a while know if you walked into   my office and look at a picture and said is that  Sarah I wouldn't say no no that's just an image   of Sarah I would say of course that's Sarah Jesus  is the image of God for Christians for Christians   he is he's the way I see God in sandals well what  do you do with Paul in 1st Corinthians 8:6 when it   says 1 Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things  and we exist through him he's he's talking about   Jesus as the creator of the universe it's not  the law Gus that becomes put in Jesus almost   like a gnostic view it is it he's the creator of  the universe according to Paul I have no problem   with that because Jesus for me is the one who took  on the Roman Empire with nonviolent resistance and   said that nonviolent resistance is the nature  of God yes nonviolent resistance is God's Way   of being so I can no problem with that but you  know what you're doing that's still different   than saying he's the creator of the universe it's  not because I think the only thing that creates   the universe and keeps it going is non-violence  violence is going to destroy it well that's that   just means to keep from destroying the you or  the earth but when you say that he's the creator   of the universe and all things came into being  through him that is saying that Jesus existed   prior to being incarnated no no how can you say  that because because okay how could it be more   clear already let me put it before Jesus existed  for example Romans had two idea of divinity and   humanity the gods could come down from wherever  they were and put on you human lineaments and act   like a human being now they certainly weren't  human they were like you and I in Halloween   care on the other hand the you a human being who  could descend among the gods because he had done   something extraordinary for the human race let's  call that the descending model and the ascending   model there were Christians who ended up being  condemned as an orthodox by seeing an effect Jesus   I can to come down from heaven he being poised  there for all eternity I suppose and you onstage   just like the curtains were drawn back here he  comes that's the descending model taken right   over from good old greco-roman pagans but but the  caesers there wasn't a descending model there they   were made gods they were ascending well let's be  a little bit more careful Caesar was the son of   his wife and his mother so his mother his mother  and Apollo yeah and they were taking up among the   gods no it not just the Senate it wasn't just the  Senate they came along later he was already son of   God between you Caesar as you know adopted son and  he was also born of Apollo's so he his credentials   were about this divine as you can get this the  Senate didn't okay but he what he still wouldn't   have been pre-existent he would have come through  divine paternity through a TIA just as Jesus in   that sense would have come from divine paternity  through Mary but it goes beyond the virgin birth   with Jesus because he's actually the creator of  the universe and that is radically different than   Caesar of course it is that's why I'm a Christian  not a Roman honestly I mean seriously we you look   at the same statements and when son of God is  said of Caesar and son of God is said they're   not saying the same thing but if you go back  into the first century and say okay now I'm a   good open-minded Roman Paul and you say Jesus  is the Son of God okay I have nothing against   that human beings can become since of God I know  that tell me what your God your son of God are   your Lord or in his head has ever done anything  for me I see what Caesar has done because he's   making the Roman Empire looking pretty good you  know he's up there in heaven among the gods taking   care of our family business now tell me what  your god I have no problem with God's becoming   humans becoming incarnate he's up in heaven fair  enough I haven't had an Enlightenment so I'm all   for that tell me what your God is doing for me  that's a first century a second century question   and Paul would have loved to have an open-minded  Roman ask that question because he knows exactly   how to answer he were asking his Caesar really  helping you every time you look over the Palatine   Hill what does it do for you and he would argue  what God what and he'd use all of that language   and yes you're quite right he would say the Jesus  Vision has the word the meaning of Jesus is there   from all eternity so what I well I would but I  noticed 3/4 an L time so I want to predict that   sorry but they go over I'm sorry good so question  three dr. Luke Kona kena story ins investigate   miracles absolutely that doesn't mean they can  confirm them I think they can confirm the event   they just can't confirm the cause of the event  so let's just say that astronomers have been   looking at a comet and tracking it for 10 years  and they've determined that it's on a direct   collision course with our Moon and they say it's  going to happen on a certain day at a certain time   and at that day the Hubble Space Telescope is  positioned in order to see what's going on at   zeroes in on the lunar surface and we're all  watching on our televisions and at the right   moment BAM it slams into the moon surface and all  this dust comes up and as the lunar dust settles   there's a message written on the moon surface and  it's in Greek and in Hebrew and it says Jesus is   Lord now a scientist can look at that and say yep  the event happened yep as far as we know there is   no natural calls for this we have no idea how this  this message got written on the lunar surface does   it have theistic implications absolutely could  a scientist confirm that God made that happen   know what a scientist could confirm that the event  happened in the same way a historian could look at   the evidence and say come to the conclusion and  say yep Jesus rose bodily physically from the   dead but that would take a miracle that would  take probably God to do that or a supernatural   cause of some sort as a historian I can't verify  that God did it or supernatural calls did it but   I could verify the event and leave the calls  undetermined yeah I agree let me push it a bit   everything so far I agree with you let me talk  about healings for a moment my experience with   healings is that I had been I've been a chaplain  with pilgrimages going to phantom and Lords I   only did it once and was in 1960s when I was very  young at the time but I was a priest a chaplain I   I watched the healings attributed to him Roman  Catholic Marian healings right all right I saw   it now I didn't see anyone on the pilgrimage get  out of there up from there stretcher and what   horrified me they've been told in bad theology  if you go to Lourdes and you really believe you   will be cured was the words you will me so I  was waiting for that these people are going to   be so desolate they're not only being told that  they're they're sick and they're staying sick   but your faith isn't you it's your fault so I will  I watched why why aren't these people absolutely   crushed they weren't I would have to say they were  healed through pure therapy something happened you   can explain it by the community of the sick  the the processions the whole world of the   sake of world for them but they went back I'm  going to say healed I never said anyone cured   now maybe if I wasn't there some other time at  7 so I'm holding on to that I'm also holding on   to being to escape its clapping a shrines at you  know costs Pergamon Epidaurus and what I find is   the same things attributed there in testimonials  I'm talking about I've discussed so people someone   must have happened because people wrote them down  they're not just propaganda the same things are   blind deaf mute troubles with pregnancy lame the  same things that are characteristic of Lourdes   same thing characteristic of a school a pious same  things characteristic of Jesus so I as a historian   I am absolutely convinced that Jesus was a major  healer now any given case there you can say it's   a typical case rather than individual fine fine  fine but he was a major healer so as historian   then I have to ask myself why do I think you  was he conning everyone what was happening   I think that's Anna story good question what is  happening if they want to call it miracle that's   the separation wouldn't they want to know the the  phenomenon itself now at escala p as i find that   the testimonials are all talking about definite  definite mutant other but then the story say he   raised the dead so the stories of the healings  come from his department of medical records and   the raising of the Dead comes from his department  of public relations I don't first I'd to kill him   because he was messing up the proportions of  the universe I don't believe for a second he   raised the dead but raising the dead tells me  big-time healer so I get to Jesus if he doesn't   raise the dead he's not a big-time healer even  though there's a they're very careful about it   so Jesus is a major healer now how do I think he  did I'm going to tell you how I think he did it   these are glasses I've had to wear them all my  life without them TEKT I'm a scholar on my life   technically I would be blind what happens to a  person in the first century who is blind blind   in the sense that I am trying to read without  glasses without the you late he's a burden to   his family he's a burden to his village I think  what Jesus is doing with this kingdom of God is   taking people like that into a new community is  he curing them I honestly don't think so I think   if somebody came up to Jesus who'd had his eyes  gouged out in a battle or something and we're   still alive and was blind do I think Jesus could  touch him and make him see no I don't I don't see   I think this is where horizons come in it's and  and the question is can historians investigate   miracle claims and I think so I think we're you're  answering here is did Jesus perform miracles no no   I really AM it honestly no I honestly am it yet  I'm trying to understand what they're telling me   happened you know you know if when they said  Jesus put his hands on them and he saw if I   could be there at that moment was I seeing as it  were you know the person with the eyes gouged out   would which I've agree that you would would be  beyond any Mary any medical experts to say the   person was born blind and all of a sudden they  can see I mean that would be the miracle right   I don't think so really if they're blind and  then they can see I don't know why wouldn't it   be it may be quite within our possibilities of  it but but you are ruling on the on all right   so you do think all right you're the answer it  for you is historians can investigate miracle   claims but when it comes to things like miracles  like raising the dead you're adjudicating on that   you're saying that did not happen so you're acting  as a historian there what I want to know is why   you don't think Jesus could raise the dead okay  I'm looking at the stories we have we have the   3d irises daughter they're very careful maybe he's  a nice daughter widow's son okay and hazard that's   yeah it's almost like he's working at it Jerris  the daughter calm asleep are dead we don't know   okay on the way to the tomb and that sounds  more like it but Lazarus the one that should   be the best Lazarus is an almost brutal parody  on the idea of raising the dead coming up with   the final statement but no I am the resurrection  and the life and if you believe in me you never   die and at that point whether we like it or not  he ain't using death the way he's been using it   all the way through that story I think John is  parodying the idea of literally kind of raising   the dead kind of coming out of the tomb that idea  because I am the resurrection life believe in me   you win that day yeah but then he says to Mary he  says you believe this do you believe this or is   it Martha says one of them believed this and she  says yes I know that we will see you know we will   be raised in the general resurrection and then  it's as though because he is the resurrection he   has that power even and it isn't John right yeah  and he talks about how he will he has that power   in him I think it's a John chapter five or nine or  thirteen one of those where he says he can raise   the dead he has that power to do so so if he is  the resurrection in that sense I think you could   take him to saying he has the power to raise the  dead and that's what he does in John but even if   whatever what happened in John there it still  wouldn't account for Luke the widow's son and   it wouldn't account for Matthew and Mark talking  about drivers of raising of Jairus daughter so   would you really believe let me go a little for a  moment that Jesus could raise the dead and this is   this is it what do you mean this is it one maybe  wouldn't possibly wouldn't maybe she sleep well   why did you say possibly because she came up and  said your daughter is dead yeah I know but why   can't they come right out and say it that's what  they want to say they did remember in in March   for a marker Luke's version you have gyrus come up  and says my daughter's about to die and the people   in and then on the way the servants hang out and  say don't trouble him anymore your daughter is now   dead yeah so I mean she's dead the widow's son is  dead Lazarus is dead Jesus raises them so I'm I'm   not saying we got enough evidence to prove it  okay but that's and that's another issue but I   mean the question they're asking is can historians  investigate miracle claims and adjudicate on them   and I think we both I've said yes and I think  from your answer you'd say yes we just arrived   at different conclusions yeah I don't want to give  I mean I agree with that I really did the most you   could say when they say in Lourdes there is no  medical evidence to explain this I want to laugh   I don't give medicine our doctors to be honest  with you that sort of power that they can tell   me what's going on half the time you know I'm I'm  84 years of age and they don't know what's going   on half the time but believe me I'm very happy for  them being around but that's why we get second and   third opinion yes but what I really don't want  to do is give up immediately somebody said what   I don't believe in miracles so I'll skip this I  want to say tell me what you think is happening   even though it's a story and then our another  way of saying it don't tell me don't believe   in the devil I want to know why there's so many  epileptics if you want to say that at the time of   Jesus how come all of a sudden we have Demoniacs  all over the place in the first century where   were they in the Old Testament who is creating  the mony Acts the Romans I think sorry I know   we're ignoring you're wearing their timekeeper dr.  Krauss and did Jesus rise from the dead absolutely   but I consider it metaphorical and not literal and  if you act accordingly by taking it metaphorically   it becomes reality now let me unpack that just a  little bit I would be careful on time every major   incident in the life of Jesus let's put it this  way is recorded in the New Testament I mean you   know if you were painting the New Testament you  you'd know what what the flight in Egypt was like   you know the Transfiguration is described the  ascension is a strike twice you know the only   one that is never described is the resurrection  itself the most important rhythm all there are   lots of stories about women and men at the tomb  women and man there's lots of stories of women   and men having visions afterwards almost too  many of them why don't they describe the actual   resurrection they assure you the effects to show  you the consequences they show you the results   they never described the most important moment  himself if somebody said to Paul okay probably   God we know what a crucifixion looks like he's  only described that tell us what the resurrection   was like if we were there what would we have seen  now secondly what we have in our Western tradition   that you all know in the art is Jesus coming out  of the tomb it's quite easy to imagine it you can   ask without being stupid or unreasonable could  you have a camera there and film them people   have asked that the whole Eastern tradition  which is closer to the New Testament tradition   has Jesus taking Adam and Eve that is the human  race out with them so now you're asking me do   I take literally Jesus came out of the tomb as  in the Western tradition I at least can imagine   that I really could imagine that taken take that  literally I don't but if you take it literally   and I take it metaphorically but I really want  to discuss with you is what it means for you   because that's I think is a first century question  I don't think if Paul takes it as literally as he   wants and describes it to his Corinthians whatever  here's what actually happened and they say if we   had a camera there an iPhone could we have taken a  picture he says yes you could then you would still   have to say well sure what we've heard that story  about Romulus and the Romans are even telling it   about more or less Julius Caesar yeah he doesn't  come out of the tomb but spirit goes up to God so   what are you telling us that's particularly new  why should we care about it on the other hand   in the Eastern tradition the resurrection is  about the whole human race now there is no way   I can take that literally Jesus taking the hand  the limp wrist actually of Adam and even taking   them out of the sepulchre as the beginning of  the general resurrection how do I take that   literally I can take the western one literally  I don't but I could at least I can't take these   two one so yeah I think what we have to decide  is what is the resurrection how is it distinct   from an ascension why did in Jewish matrix they  come up with resurrection rather than ascension   would be very simple to find an empty tomb have  had visions and say Jesus has ascended up to God   like Enoch or like Elijah like our summary Moses  even he is with God why did they say resurrection   that's the question as a story and I have the  face now what does it mean then I can ask and   then as a Christian do I believe in it and live  accordingly yes and I think if I was discussing   this with Paul and I wanted to debate with him  literal metaphorical he would say get over it   Dominic are you living a resurrected life hmm well  I'm trying but I'm not doing too good Paul that's   all he would care about because he's telling you  the general resurrection has begun if you're a   Christian you're not waiting for the resurrection  maybe there is some come but you're living it and   he would want to know are you living it and he  would say to me get over your little debates   because there are excuses for getting on with  it I think Paul would go far beyond that and I   think he makes that clear in first Corinthians 15  he's answering the Corinthians are saying to him   they asked him two questions how are the dead  raised and with what body do they come and he   says okay let me answer this and he gives a bunch  of things but he says all right verse 20 he says   Christ is the firstfruits of those who sleep in  other words he's the first to be raised from the   dead with the resurrection body and then three  verses later he says each in his own order Christ   the firstfruits after that those who belong to  Christ at his coming so in other words Jesus was   raised according to Paul in the first century year  30 or 33 and we're going to be raised Christians   raised when Jesus returns now how does that look  like what kind of body does it look that he gives   the analogy of a seed it's planted one way it's  raised another way okay there's continuity and   there's discontinuity there but then he goes  on in contrast he says you know it's sown as   a corruptible body it's raised incorruptible it's  sown in dishonor it's raised in glory its own and   weakness is raised in powered sown as a natural  body it's raised as a spiritual body and then   he talks about how it later on in the chapter we  who are alive you know at the time we're going to   be changed our bodies are gonna be changed in 2nd  Corinthians 5:8 he says to be absent from the body   is to be present with the Lord so this view that  Paul has is when we die our bodies are buried our   spirit leaves our body and go to be with Christ in  heaven where as a disembodied spirit and then when   Christ returns he brings our spirits back with  him puts it back in our corpses resurrects our   corpses and transforms them into an immortal  glorious powerful body that's animated by the   Holy Spirit and this is precisely the image that  we find in 1st grade a 1st Thessalonians 4 when   Paul is encouraging the Christians about those who  have already died as believers and he says hey we   don't want you to grieve as those who don't have  this hope but when Christ returns he's going to   bring those dead in Christ with him and then the  trumpet will sound and the dead in Christ will be   raised first well wait a minute if he's bringing  them back with him how are they going to be raised   simple he's bringing back the spirits of believers  with him and then they're going to be put back   in the bodies and those bodies are going to be  raised and transformed it is a bodily physical   resurrection we're gonna be raised just as Christ  was raised and Paul says elsewhere that and if you   confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe  your heart that God raised him from the dead you   will be saved resurrections part of that and so  this is really important for Paul resurrection   is important it is a physical bodily resurrection  yes he wants it to transform our lives Paul uses   resurrection as metaphor elsewhere but he uses it  here in a real physical bodily sense it matters   to him that's how we know Christianity is true  that Jesus is who he claimed to be it's like when   people questioned him he said you know in John  kill me and the three days all rise from the dead   or the sign of Jonah just as Jonah was three days  and three nights in the great fish so will the Son   of Man be and in the heart of the earth and then  he will raise so he predicts his death he predicts   his resurrection and this is consistent with what  we find in all four Gospels Christianity is true   because Jesus rose from the dead that's the test  by which we can know it's not just a metaphor a   nice thought by which we can use to live our  lives the earliest Christians are looking at   it as a event that occurred in history and when  we look at how the skeptics responded to it they   said the disciples stole the body the gardener  reburied the body Jesus faked his death and the   Christians so they understood the Christians to  be claiming it as a literal event and notice how   the Christians did not respond they didn't say get  over it it's just a metaphor it doesn't matter are   you living the Christian life no they defended  the bodily resurrection of Jesus so I think we   have every reason to believe that the resurrection  was meant to be understood as a real event and   no really good reasons to think that it wasn't  and in terms of the Eastern tradition I've read   Domenic stuff he appeals to the ODEs of Solomon  which is a hymnal in the early second century I   mean I don't appeal to hymns like in the garden  he walks with me and talks with me and tells me   I am his own I mean that's poetry it's not meant  to be interpreted there's flexibilities in it he   goes with two frescoes and churches in Egypt built  in the fourth and fifth century art he goes with   the gospel of Peter which by his own admission  is middle the second century he says it's even   dependent on all four Gospels it's preserved in a  single fragment dated five hundred and fifty plus   years after Jesus and based on that hypothesizes  a cross gospel for which there isn't a scrap of   evidence and for which he hasn't been able to  convince a single other scholar in the universe   so Eastern tradition might be that I want to  know what the Apostles taught and they seem to   have bent meant that it was a literal physical  event hmm just please be careful you slipped in   the word real instead of literal you said that's  a literal you did say read you said okay but just   because it's important for me if you ask me must  the Christian believe in the resurrection yes if   I am I have no vested interest a professional  job it would be quite when you say it's rubbish   I thought it was rubbish I really would and put in  pause the rubbish for thinking it if I thought it   was right I think it is a metaphor I don't think  you can take it literally because for example when   Paul says the firstfruits of those who have slept  that's exactly the same expression used in Matthew   as you know when they they come out of the tombs  well actually now in Matthew those Ray Saints are   the firstfruits then not Jesus because they're  raised that Jesus death not his resurrection and   I think that that's probably just no importance  anyway no it's not it's is they're trying to fit   this into the Jewish tradition where the idea of  a single person starting the general resurrection   is absurd because obviously held by all the  ones up to that point okay for starting the   general resurrection now fine Jesus can't come  out alone so the sleepers is their expression   for it matthew has it and you're right by the way  it's poetry and some of the most important stuff   is in poetry there are the hymns that's where  people chant before anyone's writing Gospels   are probably chanting hymns so the sleepers if you  will those who have slept is verbatim in Matthew   and in Paul it's also in they say that they were  sleeping in Matthew no I'm sorry those who have   slept is their expression for the dead right  maybe just the just among the dead but in who   had to arise with Jesus because otherwise we're  not talking about the general resurrection so the   important thing for me is that whether you take  this literally or metaphorically I don't know how   you could possibly take the plurality literally  didn't nobody notice the other empty tombs yeah   I don't take that literally and in Matthew 27 what  those races take that metaphorically I I take well   here's how I take it a special effects as portents  pretty much like Livy reports when Julius Caesar's   assassinated pale pale ghosts are seen at sunset  that black intestines are seen outside of cattle   there's a darkness there's a comment that you  know things like that that's how I understand   that I don't really see that as the heroin but  it might though that's fair enough that parallel   with the darkening of the Sun and the moon and all  the rest of that that's exactly the same thing the   portions at the death of Jesus but Matthew has a  problem they come out of the death of Jesus then   he has some kind of hover around because they  can't appear before Jesus all right so this is   typical piece of Jewish tradition that Matthew has  got forever and he stuck with because he's trying   to insert it into a marking story and it doesn't  fit into a story because what are you going to do   with these mark marker already has the darkness  in the temple you know that I know that okay so   Matthew is just commingling those things we find  that in ancient greco-roman literature where we   can confirm a comet that's reported actually was  there but we can also dis confirm that there was   an eclipse of the Sun okay at that point so we  can see that when he's working we're in agreement   on this guy it's that these people raised at  the death of Jesus and they appear with Jesus   no they didn't say they appeared with Jesus it  said after his resurrection they went into the   holy city and appeared to others too many and  something like that okay yes so I think they're   trying to describe a multitude rising with Jesus  see I'm just not worth that I don't agree with you   there but you're it bracket that on whether that's  what Matthew's doing okay we still have mark who's   getting his information from Peter we've got Paul  okay you got mark all right so we still all right   at minimum you admit you got mark you got John  you got Paul we got three independent sources   multiple independent sources that are reporting  a physical literal resurrection of Jesus and but   you crazy for you markets of competing yep even  if more the Lord get it from Peter okay I think   he did all right and even if he did and Mark is  independent of John so you got mark John and Paul   and all three of them talk about a physical  bodily resurrection and in fact Paul goes   on to say if Christ has not been raised we're  not going to be raised your faith is worthless   let's eat and drink for tomorrow we die okay so  it's that important to Paul they're all multiple   independent sources early sources rooted in  eyewitness testimony that's talking about a   physical literal resurrection of Jesus that's  pretty strong that's a lot more than metaphor   and let's face it back again they're bad versions  the better they are first century sources and all   the stuff that you have for the eastern stuff  the second century fourth century I'm not the   century I mean I'd argue for that look I didn't  bring that in tonight I really didn't would I   bring only am bringing in tonight is this is the  major event in the life of Jesus why does nobody   describe it but that's positive then because if no  one was there and they're not describing like the   gospel of Peter describes it in his very fanciful  way of the giant Jesus in a walking talking cross   we don't have that in the Gospels there were no  eyewitnesses to the actual event except perhaps   the guards in Matthew so they could have invented  it but they didn't so I think that this show that   could easily show that because they didn't invent  it but they still talk about the empty tomb and   they talk about the post-resurrection appearances  that they didn't invent it I think works in if   anything to the authenticity of the accounts I  don't see that the most important event in the   life of Jesus if they have a nice clear literal  view like most of us do have because we're   watching art for the Western art shows Jesus that  there is rising up it's looks quite literal to me   if if I leave everything out and I just look  at those images I that's what most people are   imagining if they ask Jesus comes out of the tomb  and there's maybe a flash of light and he a sensor   it's not that hard to describe it but that's  not I think what they're talking about they're   talking about a metaphor for the resurrection of  the human race and I don't know how on earth you   can well I shouldn't say I don't know how because  they have Adam and Eve representing the human race   I mean coming out with Jesus but yeah but that's  the frescoes from the fourth and fifth century   that's not new Testament that's not first century  literature but these are we're talking about when   you when people first tried to draw what they  had been talking about in the fourth and fifth   centuries not in the fourth and it was on art  no no no not biography it's art it's in no it's   an Ignatius Matthew I mean it's already there it  was taken for granted in the 1st century because   resurrection meant let me read this way there  was no tradition in Julie there was no Jewish   tradition of a single person resurrecting Sandi  yes I agree no I agree so to say that would be   almost incomprehensible to say that the general  resurrection has begun with Jesus alone I would   say is incomprehensible well why does Paul say  Christ is the firstfruits because the first tree   says not just Jesus that's why Matthew has as  I said has the same expression he doesn't use   firstfruits as you know but he says those who have  slept in what's it - perfect he says this is the   same expression and tanka climbing on or something  like that tone I kicked calling men on twenty   seven thirty twenty seven thirty three years give  or take something like tone kick climber know the   word we get coma from those who has left that's a  fifty - yeah everybody freak handbooks yeah they   those who had been sleeping those who had been  sleeping it's in the parole we used in first   Corinthians Sam X week so I don't know if we're  dealing with some kind of a technical expression   for all the dead or at least all the good dead  maybe with we're not taking them all out that   everyone knew about so those who have slept except  that they are they are ray when Jesus died there   raised a head of Jesus okay whereas Paul says  Christ as the firstfruits so manure have to admit   that Matthew contradicts Paul but you're free  to do if you like or and or you say well maybe   Matthew is using some portents there and he's  not meaning to talk about the harrowing of hell   with this or that the beginning of the general  resurrection involved multiple people Christ is   the firstfruits and then it says those who belong  to him will be raised at his coming yeah that's   the future that's the future no the question  is whether any Jews are Jewish Christians or   Christian Jews could imagine Christ arising alone  as not ascending alone of course right but arising   alone granted future and all the rest we're not  talking about that without saying what what about   other good Jews who died in Roman crosses but then  why just them and not us or why not them and not   everybody else if you have problem with it just  being Jesus and then the rest of the parasya then   why not have the same problem with Jesus plus  a few others and then the rest of the parasya   because that's and we're not talking about we're  not talking about the piracy at the moment that's   a separate issue for me I'm kind of focused on the  resurrection of the general resurrection you have   problems thinking that James at that time would  have thought that Jesus could have been the only   one I agree with that all right yeah and there's  a paradigm shift that takes place with the early   Christians and saying yep we didn't expect it  this way but Jesus is the firstfruits and then   Paul's answer in art the rest of us are gonna be  raised at his coming but the fact that he's saying   this and can think that we live as a disembodied  spirit in the meantime when we die he's thinking   of a physical bodily resurrection and this is  exactly what all four Gospels are presenting   their narrating a physical bodily resurrection  yes by the way the argument very quickly okay the   argument all four Gospels agree doesn't move me so  much Matthew and Luke copy mark I am not convinced   and with a little problem on whether John whether  John is a separate version John has a tradition   without any doubts as far as I'm concerned but  when he gets into the crucifixion resurrection   he looks awfully much like Mark rewritten to have  Jesus in charge of everything that's the way I   read John everything in there you can see mark  says my God my God why sell forsake of me no way   John says Jesus looks around soon I guess it's  all over now I'm going I mean Jesus is totally   controlled him oh yeah in John and John sighs Oh  angel so I'm afraid he's he's he knows mark and is   rewriting him to be she's almost running his own  crucifixion and his resurrection and he he may   very well have been I've only one I've only one  witness in other words he made what you got Paul   yes yes okay so that's to it but and and the thing  is if John is rooted in the eyewitness testimony   of one of Jesus disciples be it the son of Zebedee  or a minor disciple and if Mark is rooted in the   eyewitness testimony of Peter whether John knew  Peter are mark and was rewriting him to some   extent you still have two guys two independent  sources who are testing to the resurrection you   still haven't faced e so at some point I mean this  could go on another 2,000 years at this point but   all of that data could interpret it as ascension  let me take it as literally as possible just for   the point of view everything happens exactly  the way it's carried there the real question   and we still have as a historian it's why didn't  they simply say within their tradition are they   even the greco-roman tradition Jesus is clearly  ascended Romulus is ascended and we said we've all   come back and seen them so Jesus is ascended what  made them say resurrection because resurrection   is not just about Tisa it has to be about the  past then it can be about the future we're not   debating the future not at the moment that's  the separation I don't think it's possible   to talk about the resurrection of jesus for paul  without imagining but of course others came with   him now he might want to say only the just came  with him he might want to say you know the rest   could stay in hell forever but I don't think  any Jew or Christian Jew in the first century   tuning Paul could conceive of a resurrection  a resurrection for Jesus alone ascension yes   resurrection you feel free to respond and but in  your closing and I shut up okay closing statements   oh all right well this has been fun I mean truly  this is just fun it's great talking shopped and   but I think that what we're able to see is the  difference between horizons here the disparity of   horizons even amongst dominic and myself I have no  problems with saying there's a supernatural being   that there's a supernatural dimension of reality  now I look at some other things I look at things   such as near-death experiences for which there  are about 100 200 that are really really well   evidence we have corroborating data or person it  appears that they have an out-of-body experience   and then baseline an alibi experience they receive  accurate information they could not have possibly   known otherwise except had they been outside of  their body there's some fraudulent claims like   that and most of them can't be verified there's  about 100 to 200 they can all right there's a   number of things that would radically answered  prayer Craig keener has also done some study and   he's interviewed eyewitnesses over his wife is  from the Congo and gone over and even people in   his family his mother-in-law and so they have  witnessed things like the raising of the Dead   he's talked to people who have seen people who  like a woman who went in her town to a witch   doctor she had gone blind which doctor couldn't  do anything and as a last resort they went to a   pastor in the village and he said please pray for  us and he says I don't know that you he prayed for   her anyway says I can't guarantee he prayed  and she was he if she got her eyesight back   he documents a mud a bunch of miracles like this  so I do think that there is a spiritual dimension   of reality that miracles genuine miracles not just  psychosomatic stuff but real divine miracles occur   today I don't think Dominic thinks that so that's  a difference in our horizons okay when I look at   the New Testament the early literature especially  those that appear rooted in eyewitness testimony   it seems to me that these earliest Christians  believed that Jesus was more than just God   in the sense that Caesar was that the Romans  claimed of Caesar is the creator and sustainer   of the universe where did they get this idea as  monotheistic Jews and I think the only reason   can be the only plausible explanation as Jesus  made claims to this effect whether implicitly   or implicitly or through his actions I think  we've got really good evidence that Jesus rose   from the dead the earliest Christians the earliest  literature we have all talked about a physically   literally resurrected Jesus and the Apostle Paul  who knew the Jerusalem apostles that we can verify   that they certified that his Gospel message was  the same thing they were preaching that doesn't   mean they verified everything he said was the same  thing they or that there was no disagreement but   the Gospel message that basic message about Jesus  the kingdom and what he preached that that that   he was in agreement with them certainly that  included who he was and about his resurrection   so Paul's preaching a literal bodily resurrection  that's what the Jerusalem Apostles were preaching   as well and Paul said if Christ was not raised  we're not going to be raised Paul didn't mean   just metaphor with Jesus because if he meant that  with Jesus then he meant that with us as well and   I want to think that my afterlife is more than  just a metaphor that will exist in the minds   of my loved ones who survived me that's not what  Paul was talking about he said if the dead aren't   raised let's eat and drink for tomorrow we die  he meant it and they staked their lives and many   of them died for it because they truly believed  that Jesus rose from the dead and this is what   skeptics how they interpreted the Christians and  the Christians responded to those skeptics by   proclaiming by defending the bodily historical  resurrection of Jesus this is what we look at   with historical Jesus research we apply these  principles now I applaud a Dominic for looking   at the practical applications in the theology  behind a metaphor but for me if Christ has not   been raised the metaphor might be nice well that's  not going to cause me to follow Christ if it comes   to a point where I have to give up my life for  faced possible imprisonment torture and execution   I don't care about the metaphor any longer the  only thing that's going to sustain me during that   time there's my confidence that Christianity is  true because Jesus rose from the dead and because   he lives I will live - thanks well I wouldn't  want to die but I would only die for a metaphor   if I if all I'm talking about is that Jesus rose  literally from the dead good for Jesus people died   for metaphors they will even die for a metaphor  not because they have some idea of an afterlife   they won't die for a piece of real estate between  Mexico and Canada but they might die for their   homeland not because they're going to live on  afterwards or anything else people will die for   metaphors the horrible thing is some people die  for horrible metaphors so I take metaphor more   seriously than anyone who doesn't could understand  because it is our destiny now after all the time I   spent with Jesus here is what is most important  for me the Romans to go back to the Romans Crucified the leaders of non-violent groups alone  if you're the leader of a non-violent group of   opposition we might call them activists the ruins  did not crucify philosophers might boot them out a   Rome but the didn't crude they crucified what we  would call activists so Jesus was crucified but   his followers were not rounded up I take that as  an historical fact I take it from Josephus at the   end of the first century Roman Jews Jewish  historian Tacitus at the beginning of the   second century trying to explain what these weird  Christians were there were followers of Christ who   started a movement over there we executed them  to stop it and talk on it it didn't stop its   spread Tacitus says like a disease and everything  rotten eventually arrives in Rome so it came here   to Josephus is a little bit more polite he says  those who loved him before loved him afterwards   but their border they port understand that we  executed the follower of a non-violent movement   and it didn't stop the movement now I take that  as a fundamental fact you know from the story of   Barabbas which I think by the way is parable not  history that Barabbas in Mark's Gospel is in jail   with the others Romans are going to crucify them  all in a nice row they're a violent group Jesus   is going to be crucified alone according to Roman  law according to Roman law anyone who stirs up the   people or creates a tumult we call an activist  will according to their rank and quote he now   either be crucified cast who the beasts are sent  to an island never quite understood who I've been   sent to in the gian Islands as a punishment but  that's and I've never been there for a winter so   maybe that's something else that tells me the  most important thing Jesus died for nonviolent   resistance to violence itself not just a role  Rome was just enormous e of civilization the   resurrection means for me that God is on the side  of that I cannot imagine the crucifixion without   the resurrection it's just a brutal death without  the resurrection this is God's vindication that   the way to handle violence is non-violence because  violence escalates violence more and more maybe   they didn't know that in the first century but we  know it today so if I have only one thing of Jesus   only one thing and I have this one thing he died  for nonviolent resistance to the normal violence   of imperialism not just to Rome Rome was just the  Mediterranean version of it in the first century   I think that is for me an evolutionary challenge  how will we granted the escalatory violence it is   the normalcy of civilization if you don't know  what I'm talking about I'm talking about that   it took I think 63 years to get from the Wright  Flyer you know the Kitty Hawk North Carolina to   the stealth-bomber we are really good at violence  so what is going to stop us destroying ourselves   accept non-violence that is the challenge of Jesus  and it's vindicated by the resurrection it is for   me a metaphor a metaphor for the future of our  species if we have a future that is why it is   so vital thank you so we now move on to our final  portion of this evening's dialogue questions and   answers so those of you who have a question for  dr. lu kona please line up on this side of the   aisle there is a microphone toward the front  of the auditorium here and likewise those four   questions for dr. Crossan line up over here and  while you're doing so I will give you a couple   of an out announcements I believe most of you are  handed one of these slips this evening this is an   encouragement for you to go to a surveymonkey.com  and fill out a survey about this about this   evenings event what you liked what you didn't like  what you wanted to see more of so on and so forth   and also you were please invited to an event on  November 7th at 7:30 p.m. and the Social Sciences   Building room 30 30 rah Tia Christi one of the  groups hosting this event will be hosting Georgia   Tech professor of chemistry dr. David Cheryl who  will be giving a talk on the topic science and   faith enemies or allies will take a question over  here first hi thank you for this great talk so dr.   Koh my question was that you alluded to Paul a  lot in your talk but historically Paul was not   an eyewitness and I don't think there's a there's  a way to really figure out whether his experience   in the road to Damascus we can really historians  can figure out whether that happened or not so how   do we know that historically Paul did not affect  the Gospels as he was the earliest writer or a   Christianity in general and the other question  pertaining to literal and metaphorical trade as   God was that in the Old Testament there are a  lot of figures that are called God angels are   called God judges are called God Moses is called  God so and that's alluded in John chapter 10 where   Jesus actually refers to that that why are you  sewing me because you know referring to psalm   82 so if the author of john from the gospel of  the the prologue literally meant god why would   he put in for 17:3 which Trump's father as the  only true god or ends the gospel by saying that   I've ridden all of this so that you may know that  he's the Messiah the son of God not creator of the   universe right good questions so I would say when  with John he does distinguish Jesus from other   so-called gods because he talks about Jesus being  the creator of the universe all things came into   being by him and through him nothing came into  being that's that came into being and you have   Paul saying the same thing in a couple different  places first Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1 16   and 17 where Jesus is the creator and sustainer  of the universe so this is quite different than   than others so in terms of Paul Paul does claim  to be an eyewitness of the Risen Jesus in first   Corinthians chapter 15 verse 8 he says last of  all is to one and timely born he appeared to me   and first Corinthians 9 he says has not Jesus  appeared to me so or have I not seen Jesus so   he does claim to be an eyewitness of the Risen  Jesus he may we don't know but he may have seen   Jesus preached during his lifetime you mean every  time you turn around the Gospels Jesus is up in   Jerusalem as a festival and a festival Passover  or whatever Paul would have been there as well   who knows Paul was a Pharisee coming up through  the ranks he may very well have been at the trial   of Jesus we don't know but he was he certainly  claims to be an eyewitness of the Risen Jesus   in Galatians chapter 1 he says that three years  after his conversion he went up to Jerusalem and   he met with Peter for three days our for 15 days  and the Greek word is history side meaning he was   getting some information about Jesus he hadn't  walked with Jesus so he wants to get the whole   nine yards from someone who had you know hey Paul  I heard he walked on water or Peter he walked on   water did he really do that what was it like were  you walking on water to at some point and how did   you feel what did he say to you when you were at  the campfire after talking to the crowds all day   so and then he goes back up 14 years later and  runs the Gospel message past them to verify that   he's saying the same thing that they're saying so  this is before any of the Gospels are written so   even if we didn't have any of the Gospels we can  get a basic message from Paul of what the Apostles   were preaching so did his preaching influenced  any of the Gospels maybe at maximum Luke's Gospel   but I don't think so because Paul wouldn't have  been around during that time and Luke said he   got his information it's it's kind of ambiguous  he's either saying he got it for my witnesses or   those who knew the eyewitnesses you certainly  get it from mark whether got some from Paul I   don't know but I don't see any Pauline influence  in the others thank you you mentioned that you   affirm historians use the criteria of authenticity  given that Jesus was Jesus proper burial described   and the New Testament fulfills the criterion  of multiple attestation and the criterion of   embarrassment as women were the ones who anointed  G as his body in the burial process and given that   Jesus proper burial is consistent with Josephus  tells us that Rome allowed you to follow their   customs including taking the crucified victims off  the cross and burying them how do you reconcile   this with your view that it's plausible that  use was thrown into a common grave and eaten   by wild dogs all right just a correction of fact  I didn't say we should I agree we should we had   to have criteria I did not say we should use the  double differentiation but leave that aside the   problem with the burial for me is this when I look  again from mark into Matthew and Luke and into   John I'm seeing that as a stream of tradition it's  getting better and better all the time I'm trying   to imagine what it was there before mark when  Mark the best mark can say is that maybe some   pious not maybe some pious Jew named bury them  I do respect for like Tobias now I want to know   as a historian is that hope or history do they do  they really have facts and if they have facts why   does it have to keep getting better in Matthew  and Luke and John of course the burial of Jesus   is the period of a god it's a magnificent barrier  I don't think they knew what happened to Jesus and   what it is true that you could certainly bribe  your way if you had enough money to get the the   guards to give you the body of course you could  that's the only way you could that the function   of crucifixion was to hang you up there as a state  terrorism to warn you don't do what you this guy   did or you'll end up like he has so then I don't  think the Romans obeyed the Jewish expectation   that you don't leave a crucified up overnight in  the cross I don't think the Romans cared their   function was to leave it up there as long as they  wanted so I don't know how we can be sure of what   happened to the body of Jesus I don't know how  to do it maybe mark is telling us history with   your severe mafia but boy Luke John really has the  clean that opened Nicodemus and the huge amount of   spice it's like they don't know what happened and  the best I can do is surely some highest you don't   carry the body to be fair running short on time  we have no sorry I'll give them preference sorry   Michael okay first of all gentlemen thank you for  your time and coming and share your knowledge of   historical Jesus and Christianity appreciate  it very much my question I'm just curious are   there any new documents or fragments that have  come to light in the last recently I don't know   maybe five ten years something roughly that  have really added significantly to the body   of knowledge about the historical Jesus and if  so you know but what has it how has it added to   it no recently I think earlier this year it was  revealed that there's this mark fragment that has   been discussed for a while and that has finally  been dated I think too early second century and   would be the earliest fragment or manuscript of a  portion of mark that we have but it didn't change   anything from what our text says right now yeah  my questions dr. Crossing because you've been   talking about metaphor versus liberal and such  my wife and I've been married for eight years   and we do have a great love for one another but  we also know our time here is always limited and   when we see a literal resurrection Jesus and he  says because I live you shall live also and live   forever eternal that brings us a lot of great  joy that's the difference it makes like in a   metaphorical resurrection do for us that would  be EB even we're close to put a little one is because the metaphor is for the future of the  human race so what you've just said that really   the importance of the Resurrection for Jesus is  that you're going to get one - I don't expect   that I accept that I will not have that but the  metaphor is about the salvation redemption of the   human race whether we are going to destroy  ourselves or whether as I said nonviolent   resistance is the only mode of countering violence  that will redeem the human species now if you're   convinced of course there is a heaven and a  hell in the future and God's going to fix it   all off no matter what we do that's different  I think we are responsible for our own future great so I have a question about these the  Ascension and I know the resurrection is   important and making a case for Christianity but  seems like the Ascension kind of gets pushed aside   and when you evaluate the Ascension and you see  it Matthew looks like happens in Galilee Acts   mentions 40 days and and I know even Paul mentions  500 people seeing Jesus at one time which would   I suppose happen during that 40 days so a lot of  things kind of don't connect and I see that it's   a bit of an objection so I'm curious if maybe  you've ever thought through or has anyone ever   made such a historical case for the Ascension  and how do you maybe deal with some of those   those areas that seem to not match up very well  yeah well I I don't see any of those things not   matching up just because let's say the Gospels  don't mention the appearance to the more than   500 at one point or all the appearances none of  them are doing all the appearances in fact seems   to me that Matthew and Luke compresses the time  so you have appearance to women in Matthew and   then but the appearance to the male disciples  doesn't happen until Galilee all right and then   that's kind of like the end of it there in the  appearance the male disciples in Galilee Luke kind   of combines them all together to have occurred  on Easter the resurrection all the appearances   and the Ascension he does know that it happened  this happened over a period of time because Acts   chapter 1 he says it happened over a period of  40 days but he's just compressing them all into   one day just time compression a common literary  device why he does it I don't know maybe it's to   increase the intensity maybe it's to keep focus  on Jerusalem which was the headquarters of the   Christian Church maybe it was because he was run  out of space on his scroll and just did that to   compress I don't know why but none of them are  trying to report all the appearances and notice   that in 1st Corinthians 15 the women aren't  mentioned because this the Paul causes Keurig   muds the official formal public proclamation  for which the appearance to women would have   detracted in that culture so he doesn't mention  them but I don't see any kind of like tension   between them now why does it I don't historians  talk a lot about the Ascension maybe because we   just don't have enough evidence to verify it and  you know you've got multiple independent sources   that talk about Jesus's death multiple independent  sources even those rooted in eyewitness testimony   talking about his physical resurrection we  just don't have that with the Ascension a couple more brief ones okay this is a question  for dr. cross well I see in like respect your   viewpoint about the metaphor about the body  of the Resurrection right but I don't see if   you're a first century Roman peasant or farmer or  whatever like and Paul comes to you and says you   know Christ is risen or jesus is risen but it's  only a metaphor don't worry about it like yeah   it's it's like I don't think it'd be a compelling  enough reason like it you have a metaphor versus   you know Caesar is the living the Living God  or whatever right so they're like a lot of   nice metaphor series nice metaphors and star wars  or you know The Chronicles of Narnia or whatever   but if you have a real thing versus a metaphor the  real thing always wins out and I don't see have a   first-century person could believe in metaphor  over the real reason or the real reason bodily   resurrection you know all right please understand  the language again you notice how you slip from   metaphor to real please understand I'm saying the  most real thing in the world is a metaphor I never   use this language that you use metaphorically  let me take your question good first century   debate Paul is talking to an open-minded person  who hasn't any of the hang-ups that I might have   after the Enlightenment he says telling them about  Jesus as little as he want Jesus is with God you   might say the God a good open-minded Roman would  say but Paul Augustus is already among the guards   and he is taking care of the Roman Empire why  do we need another one there's only one Empire   I wouldn't worldly would say Paul would say this  is how it works what is Augustus doing for you   if he's talking to an arrest high aristocrat in  the Senate she's not talking to him because he's   not listening to the peasant if you will are the  report artisan were likely in the herbs is going   to say well yeah he's well I guess he's keeping  peace around you know he's keeping the celts out   of the streets and that's good but yeah he hasn't  done much for me I'm still working as hard as I've   ever worked so tell me about your guy he's up in  heaven right so he's influential tell me what he   might do for me that is a first-century question  a first-century response is not i don't believe   people go up to heaven i don't believe in the  resurrection no that's all us first centuries   what's what's he going to do for us that's where  Paul would say fine and in fact just murder Alma   says the same thing when he says well you you  guys claim that your Emperor's go up to heaven   too but he's going to say and this is going to get  Paul killed and get just a martyr eventually our   Jesus says all your Emperor's rolled up in a ball  or not worried are Jesus's little finger because   if you push them what you people do is injustice  and violence and you run the world like that and   you think victory is going to give you the world  and our Jesus coming from a different tradition   the Jewish tradition says victory is a bankrupt  program only justice can ruin the world these   are absolute clashes they're not on the same level  but you have to choose and what makes you choose   is faith Roman faith goes with Caesar Christian  faith goes with Jesus they were both acts of faith   and they're both making an the faith in a matter  for one final question dr. lacunae you've talked   about the reliability of narrative material in  the synoptic Gospels Matthew Mark and Luke I   want to ask about Q the name given to the body of  sayings of Jesus in Matthew and Luke could you say   something about what material from Q you think  can be said to be likely may be very likely to   have come from the lips of Jesus what Q material  could very likely come from the lips of Jesus oh   boy mm-hmm no I'd have you caught me on the spot  for that you know I do think that III do embrace   the to source hypothesis I do think that there  is a Q source I don't know what it is I think   it's I mean it is sayings material I think it's  likely or at least possible that it's what Pappas   was talking about the scenes or Oracle's of the  Lord that was originally in Aramaic and that is   what he attributed to Matthew that's translated  into Greek the Beatitudes mic would be thank you   to beatitude oh yeah yeah the Beatitudes thanks  of Dominic Beatitudes I would say that and even   though we don't have those outside of the cube  material preached in a sermon by Jesus per se   on the mount we do have a lot of those same the  the material in the Sermon on the Mount that's   peppered throughout the Gospels and we find it  in James we find some in Romans so these are   common teachings that were attributed to Jesus  in the Sermon on the Mount even just more than   two Beatitudes but the Sermon on the Mount a  lot of the material in that I would say what   I have to think there's some of that probably  some of the things where he is talking about   I think in Q 3 and Q 13 where he's talking  about himself being the eschatological judge   I mean most things that historians of Jesus will  agree on is that Jesus did claim to be the the   apocalyptic son of man and so those cue scenes  I forgot what three is 13 I think as many will   say to me on that day Lord Lord did we not do  and you know I forgot what three is but those   are probably authentic reckless recollections  of sayings of Jesus before I let you all go I   want to remind you that as you're leaving we're  gonna be having book sales and book signings by   our our two speakers tonight but please join me in  thanking both of them and thank you all for coming you you you

Channel: Mike Licona

Views: 29,407

Rating: 4.5925927 out of 5

Keywords: historical Jesus, what is the historical jesus, who is the historical Jesus, Mike Licona, John Dominic Crossan, Brian Swain, Jonathan Mann, historical Jesus debate, historical Jesus lecture, historical Jesus vs Christ of faith, historical Jesus Bart Ehrman, historical Jesus Gary Habermas, historical Jesus Reza Aslan, historical Jesus Yale, Licona debates, Licona Crossan, John Dominic Crossan historical Jesus, John Dominic Crossan debate, crossan licona debate

Id: p_7bQlh8uWc

Length: 130min 7sec (7807 seconds)

Published: Fri Nov 16 2018