e [Applause] well good evening everybody and welcome to this special public discussion it's uh wonderful to to see you all here my name is Josh hen and uh I'll be chairing the event this evening it's a joint event between the philosophy society and the Christian union I'm a member of of the philosophy society and of the Christian union so it's a great pleasure to to be with you this evening the title for this evening is the resurrection of Jesus religious invention or historical fact and we're delighted to welcome our speakers Gary habas and Ken Humphries and I'll hand over now to Georgie Gardner who is the president of the philosophy Society who'll be introducing Gary habas thank you good evening uh Professor Gary habas gained his PhD from Michigan State University he's now a distinguished research professor at Liberty University and is a visiting professor at 15 different graduate schools and universities he's published 32 books half of which are on the resurrection Gary habas and now I'll pass you back to Josh to introduce Ken uh Ken Kenneth humph has taught both in the UK and abroad including a senior lectureship in modern languages religion and in particularly uh in particular the claims of Christianity have been a real lifelong interest for Ken he's now fully occupied as a writer radio broadcaster and public speaker and campaigns energetically against the tide of resurgent superstition and unreason I'll give you Kenneth humph [Applause] [Music] with those introductions over uh I'll now explain the format for this evening we'll start off with two statements one from uh Ken initially and then from Gary of 50 minutes or 80 minutes of length around about that sort of length and then we'll have some responses from both sides of about 5 minutes or so and then we'll have a time of open discussion between the two speakers after that there'll be a time of Q&A and for that time all you need to do is raise up your hand and I'll I'll point to you and the rothing mic will reach you then just say the the question uh nice and clearly and then uh then they'll respond after that we'll have some closing comments from the speakers and and then we'll finish so to begin our public discussion this evening uh we have uh Ken humph good evening um I'm not a great believer conspiracy theories but it did seem as if today somebody on high was making life difficult because there was uh a 4-Hour delay at Gatwick Airport thanks to an unusual storm if it was an attempt to prevent my speaking here tonight it did at least fail okay let me thank uh both the uh Christian union and the philosophy Society uh of Edinburgh University for this opportunity to speak let me also thank Gary habas for this willingness to debate on a topic that I certainly find of consuming interest so there's some joy in that but uh I should also say there's some sadness in the fact that here we are in the early years of the 21st century and and yet we are discussing the uh reality or otherwise of the Resurrection uh of a man from from Beyond the Grave um it's it's it's would perhaps in all places seem unfortunate here in the city of David uh Hume that we have to uh discuss this issue because I think he himself if we allow the the possibility would be turning in his grave that we still entertain such ideas um in view of the time span I may have to speak fast but we we have a lot of ground to cover the uh the 19th century was notable for the progress of humanity in its understanding of the universe and its successes of course led to the retreat of religion in many spheres so it was a reasonable expectation on the part of many thinkers in the early years of the 20th century that by now religion would have retreated into the shadows and it certainly seemed that way as the hammer blows of Science and rationality forced religion to retreat and uh it no longer with any great commitment uh maintained its old truths now that prevailing optimism of a rational future without Superstition prevailed through much of the 20th century of course and I can remember in my early childhood you know the uh the enthusiasm of projects like the putting of men on the moon that the future seemed to be bright and the future seemed to be very rational and what perhaps helped summ ize and capture that that optimism for a scientific future was a program like Star Trek which gave us on a weekly basis a vision of what life might be like in the 23rd Century it would be a rational future where mankind would boldly go across the universe and religion didn't figure in that really much at all if you remember the early series of Star Trek well the only time religion intruded was When A Primitive alien race was either deluded or some devious aliens were using technology to fool simple people but Humanity was Guided by the logic of science now that seemed to be sufficient for most of us uh back in in in the 60s and 70s and it's rather surprising that now in the 21st century some of the battles that had been fought in the the 19th century need to be refought now why is that well I think partly the answer is the same wealth that brought us things like the Apollo Mission and putting man on the moon also fed itself into colleges of biblical study throughout the USA who had since the famous Monkey Trial of the in Tennessee in the 1920s being somewhat cing in a corner very uncertain about the future because rationality and science threatened the very existence of organized religion now they may have become a footnote in history were it not for the fact that some of the Delights of of Technology such as television made it possible for religion to move to the The Forum of of mass communication and we had the rise of TV TV evangelicals who were very Adept at selling Christ and very Adept at raising vast amounts of money now from that time in the 1970s uh these institutions have developed a response to the rational Revolution they've leared certain tricks and certain ways to gain credibility one of which is to use some of the language of science so they talk about data for example you know in a very scientific term um the the the uh the the the wealth provided a number of scholarships provided the development of a number of of biblical schools even the emergence of some strange institutions called Christian universities um certainly strange to any rationalist that is okay they have come forward now with a number of explanations if we put it that way which challenge science science across a broad front we're all familiar with the the notion of uh now called intelligent design or creation science which is a thrown down the gaunlet of course to evolutionary biology with we have the challenge of something called young Earth geology and of course we have a whole body of information relating to the central beliefs of Christianity which are no longer perceived as simply matters of Faith but we are told they are matters of fact and history and the resurrection of Jesus is described now as one of the best attested facts in history which to anyone of a rational uh disposition seems an extraordinary claim that we might be able to maintain the the the resurrection of a person from Death 2,000 years ago is better attested than say the Battle of actium or the or or or or juliia Caesar but these claims are regularly made now let me familiarize you those of you who have never entered the Twilight Zone of Christian apologetics just just how this methodology works and I'll briefly give you an introduction that won't take more than about 3 minutes which I think we just about have time for but as it relates to a different resurrection that is of someone other than Jesus now the person I'm going to take for this example is actually known to you all and you will you immediately recognize the example if we take the story of Snow White you will know that she returned from Death through the kiss of a prince now many of you might think that that is a fairy T story but actually it's one of the best attested events in history now how can we prove that point well we have a number of firsthand witnesses to that event for example we have the handsome prince himself now his life was changed by that event he got married he lived happily ever after so we have a witness there that we can rely upon who else do we have we have the wicked Queen now that's a particularly good witness because she gives enemy attestation of the event she wanted Snow White dead but no so we have a second really good witness we have the witness of the her Ser the servant who was sent to kill Snow White now he changed his mind of course he didn't kill Snow White in the forest he let her live so here we have a very good witness from a cynic a skeptic we could say that he changed his mind he's a sec a third good witness now we we have something which we might also describe as an embarrassing witness for example we had the witness of the magic mirror the magic mirror is such an obvious silliness that the fact that it's in the story proves that it must be true okay and giving some support to that idea is an early Creed that Creed as we all know is mirror mirror on the wall who's the fairest of us all now that shows that that story is actually more can be traced back to Prior evidence the Creed obviously preceded the story so we had the evidence there of a Creed who else do we have to to Bear out this this this uh this story as as a as as history well of course we had the statements made by happy grumpy sleepy Sneezy Dopey bashville and Doc we had seven firsthand Witnesses to the resurrection in total then we have 11 Witnesses firsthand statements that this is actually history do we believe it of course we don't it's a fairy story I'm just playing with words and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs is a fairy story and I'm sorry to tell some of you that Jesus Christ and the 12 disciples is a fairy story and evidence for the resurrection is constructed in precisely the way I've outlined now we might maintain of course it could all be true anyway in which case it requires a miracle now I'm not going to rule out a miracle a priori after all by its very definition it's something so unusual we wouldn't know it we wouldn't have evidence for it at least how would we prove that it had ever occurred okay so my my point would be that we have no evidence for the resurrection other than that which has been carefully constructed by people so M motivated to maintain the truths of a of a a religion which had been weakened to the point of almost self-destruction by the proofs of science but nonetheless you know we the the the industry which can present this this uh this this story as fact as vast strength vast resources transmits its message across the world holds forums explaining how it is all true and I have to say it is all bogus thank you [Applause] [Music] thank you Ken I too had problems getting here so I think we're even we left well I won't go into detail but we were in the storm and then I get up here and I try to take some notes and my pen quit writing that's a serious matter so you know whose side are the forces of nature on I don't know I would like to also begin by thanking the Christian union and the philosophical Society of Edinboro University and both Josh and Georgie I appreciate this opportunity beautiful venue nice to be with you flew into town today have to leave tomorrow but I'm very happy to be with you this evening I'm defending the view that you just heard was a fairy tale but that's okay Ken's a good guy we've talked to the phone we had a little time before I told him I said if we were neighbors we would probably get together ining a football game we have a lot of chats I think we should I think this thing is wonderful a discussion like this let me first begin by telling you some things I am not going to try to do or so you're clear about my position things I am not defending okay first of all I do not argue that Christianity is Vindicated by faith and we should all believe I interested in data historical data to be exact other kinds secondly I will not argue tonight the Bible tells me so my beliefs about the Bible aside I will not assume inspiration of the Bible biblical reliability or anything of the sort I'm going to make an argument for the resurrection that borrows sources and data from critics agnostics atheists who are writing today the biggest name Scholars writing today of those mindsets I'm going to use their data at no point point will I assume I mean I mean of course I'm willing to talk about the Bible and I assume Ken will too but I think what I'm saying is I'm referring to the Bible is an ancient document the way you might ask a question about Shakespeare or Homer or somebody else suetonius tacitus what do we know about data thirdly I do not believe that things are true because Scholars say so I don't I I just say it this way I don't think things are true just because Scholars say so but I think it's very very important that we understand the scholarly lay of the land for this reason not because scholarship proves anything but because of Scholars from the left right and Center agree on something they probably agree for good reasons there there are probably reasons behind their agreement but I don't think citing Scholars solves the issue I'm not going to argue tonight I might surprise some of you I'm not going to argue tonight that the resurrection is a miracle I'm going to argue that the resurrection is event that occurred in history a man named Jesus of Nazareth died and a man named Jesus of Nazareth Nazareth was later seen and that would constitute Resurrection to appear after a real death so that's my argument because I'm giving deference to David Hume here we're in his City and uh he says a miracle is an act of God that breaks the laws of nature and that just just part of a discussion I'm not going to be able to get into those are some thoughts up front what I do want to say is let me go back this earlier topic I want to argue that we have data for the resurrection and I'm going to give an argument here in just a moment for the resurrection and I'm going to limit my facts almost totally to folks with whom I have huge disagreements um I'm going to limit my survey to as I said atheist agnostic and skeptical New Testament Scholars or theologians because once again I'll repeat the principle I'll go in reverse order there's two principles here the second one is I build a lot on where scholarship is not because that in itself proves anything but because I think scholarship is there for a reason and when Believers and unbelievers agree about something it's usually because there are reasons it's usually because because there are data okay so if you ask a Christian if you said um here's the New Testament and you want to talk about this man Jesus and the Christian says yes and he said but the man's in the book yep I don't believe the book so I don't believe the man that's a thoughtful objection and I'm going to take about that same approach tonight because I'm as I said I'm not going to assume either inspiration or reliability but if you ask the average Christian that question they're going to say something like this well if we want to talk about the resurrection of Jesus we need to take a look at the gospels of Mark uh in normal order Mark Matthew Luke and John and these Artic these gospels are usually strewn along a timeline from about 65 to 95 ad for example the well-known uh skeptical scholar uh G Wells who um from uh London area argues that all of these gospels are written before 120 ad okay that's a typical approach but I think the best approach to argue for the resurrection is to use the writings of the Apostle Paul for this reason today Paul is the critic's darling you might say critics from the opposite side of the spectrum that I'm on will say Paul is the critic darling why well Michael Martin atheistic Professor philosophy in the US wrote a book called the case against Christianity says this Paul's testimony is the only eyewitness testimony we have for a resurrection appearance of Jesus okay so I can either say well wait a minute how about the gospels or I can say I'll take Paul and move with him and just to start I'm going to take Paul now probably the best known critic in our country the best known skeptic in our country is an agnostic scholar and his name is Bart Erman he's written a number of books generally he's published by Oxford University press so there's a little tie across the ocean and Bart talks about the Undisputed Epistles of Paul as almost every new testament scholar does and they will generally label seven books with that title Bart would say Romans 1 and 2 Corinthians Galatians Philippians first Thessalonians fiman and I and I'll just note in passing G Wells gives the exact same list with Colossians added so ga Wells has eight Epistles these are dated between 50 sometimes Scholars go back as early as 48 but these are dated from 50 to 60 AD GA Wells dates them from 50 to 60 AD so I'm using G Wells and I'm using Bart Erman an agnostic so I'll say okay well let's take a look at Paul's Epistles in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 beginning with verse three excuse me Paul says this he says in verse three I gave you what I was given and he's using technical words for passing on Tradition now if we believe Tom uh Tom excuse me uh Paul's own testimony that he was a Pharisee we know from Josephus and others that these same terms are used by Pharisees for the passing out of tradition this is a a society where it's very possible that 90% of Jesus's audience was illiterate and for that kind an audience you have to uh tell stories perhaps we call those Parables or you have to make statements shorter pithier statements and I think that was the credle portion of the Snow White story because critics make a make a big deal of short passages in the New Testament that basically answer the question of what did earliest Christian preaching consist before the very first New Testament book was written and Creeds are the answer to that question they fill in the gap between 30-ish the approximate death of Jesus 30ish and 50ish AD and Paul's reporting one of these if contemporary critical theology agrees on one thing today it's that 1 Corinthians chap 15 in in that text beginning with verse three Paul is reporting material let me step out here and do it this way if this is 55 ad the writing of his book and back to that table is the death of Jesus let's just say it that way Paul says 55 ad the dates are the same whether you're looking at critics or Believers or whatever and Paul says verse three I gave you what I was given now let me first give you a critic's conclusion this was not developed by Believers or conservatives it came from the critical side of town I'm not pointing at Ken by the way I'm talking about my timeline here um and here's the here's the conclusion that they come up with I'm be glad during the Q&A or any other time to give you bibliography names dates uh doctoral thesis whatever you want but the leading conclusion is that Paul received this material in 35 ad and here's how they get this the cross about 30 Paul's conversion is placed at about plus two Paul says in Galatians CH 1 an undoubted Pauline epistle in fact Bart armman calls these six Epistles that I've already outlined for you he calls them Undisputed Pauline Epistles there may be a person here and there a few people but for the most part for an agnostic New Testament specialist like Bart Erman to refer to the Undisputed Pauline Epistles he must not see too many people on the horizon who are going to disagree with this picture and the idea is here's about 30 ad Paul meets the Risen Jesus he claims about plus two after this event he says 3 years later Galatians chap 1 3 years later I went up to Jerusalem 2+ 35 so we're at about 35 ad and Paul said when I went to Jerusalem he said I didn't just go up there well CH dot of Cambridge makes a famous statement he said Paul didn't go to cambrid Paul didn't go to Cambridge at all uh he said Paul didn't go to Jerusalem to talk about the weather what did he do he said I interviewed Peter the Apostle of Jesus and James the brother of the Lord and he said they're the only two Apostles I saw and I talked to him for 15 days in context Paul is witnessing regarding in the context they're talking about the nature of the gospel and then right afterwards Paul says I assure you I didn't lie about this I talked to these fellas and we confirm the gospel this is just plus five now critics argue that Paul received this credle passage recently Richard bacham just recently retired from St Andrews he's living in in um Cambridge today and Richard bacham had just argued that what I'm giving to you is not some conservative if you believe inspiration kind of he argues this is the consensus of modern scholarship the consensus puts Paul's receiving this material in 35 but the two men from whom Paul probably believed this material and received this material Peter and James now now let me just stop there for a second I'm not talking about Paul's own appearance I'm talking about the two disciples talking about their appearances Peter James or brother Lord and he hears this here at about plus five but these two men had the material obviously they had it before Paul had it so we have to be earlier than 35 now credle material is formulated it reads in the Greek it reads a da da da da da da da da da da da da da da style now it doesn't rhyme like English poetry but there's a staccato sense to it it breaks the syntax of the sentence anyway Scholars have pretty well agreed where these things are and and again they're Scholars over on the other side of the equation so now let me let me stretch out this 5 years this is 35 that's 30 Paul receives this material it's a consensus of scholarship according to St Andrews Richard bacham Paul receives this material plus 35 the two men from whom he received it Peter and James the brother of Jesus had to have it before him if you're going to give it to somebody you have it first now this is the date of the formulation of the Creed the events on which the Creed are based has to be earlier still and if you have two steps in between 30 ad and 35 ad we're getting back very very close to the events in question how close am I just talking about conservative Christians I am not for example let me cite one of the men on Ken's website Garrett ludan atheist New Testament scholar in Germany Garrett ludman says he he admits this whole timeline and he says as well as the general dates for the Epistles of Paul the What's called the authentic the Undisputed Epistles and ludan says the latest that this material became a Creed the latest is 33 ad or plus three he said that's the latest in our country have a group of folks called the Jesus seminar they're extremely skeptical in the Press they're almost synonymous with skepticism they're the ones who throw beads in the Hat and they've rejected 80 to 90% depending on how you count they reject 80 to 90% of the so-called red letter sayings of Jesus the Jesus seminar not conservative founded by Irish scholar John coming across an American Scholar Marcus Borg who's an Oxford grab by the way but they founded the Jesus seminar and they say the latest this material could be is plus two years after the death of Jesus plus two years the latest contributors to this discussion are three British Scholars one right here in this city well he's an American but he's a head of a British Department here Larry herado and he said recently he has studied the subject of the deity of Christ it's been his specialty for 35 years and he said there is never a time when the earliest Christian preaching there was never a time when Jesus was not preached as a Divine and B raised from the dead in other words herado says the message goes back to 30 ad second case the one I mentioned Richard bacham St Andrews he said says exactly the same never was a time when Jesus was preached as anything other than deity or raised now I'm going to tell you why this is important in a moment third voice is as influential a scholar as there is today in historical Jesus studies James or Jimmy DG Dunn University of Durham and dun in a recent book on Jesus remembered dun says this material becomes formal formerly calized material no later than 30 ad now folks these are Scholars from some of your own universities here in fact I could mention Tom Ryden here too Professor both Oxford and Cambridge folks this is not an example of what kind of silly Christians are still believing this since David Hume this is not an example of I think it's kind of a red herring to say what about TV preachers and Snow White how do these people get away with teaching this kind of poppycock at Edinburgh Durham Oxford Cambridge wouldn't they be drummed out of court if this was on the level of Snow White you'd think so but these fellas have written extremely influential books now I'm going have to stop in a moment but here's where I'm going if Jesus dies here and there never was a time when he was preached as anything other than deity dead and buried what Christianity calls the gospel if there never was a time what that means is we don't wait decades and have somebody say oh look Virgo that must be the Virgin birth which was recently proclaimed or go a few more decades and say hey I think this guy must be God I don't want to be second best to the other religions around here IIs and Osiris and others let's say he's God yeah I'll say he's God if you say he's God yeah from now on he's God oh hey what happens to Gods they're raised from the dead so another hundred years later we say he's raised from the dead that's not the way it went when you're doing historiography the key to historiography there's a bunch of rules and actually Ken did a good job mentioning some of the rules embarrassing testimony this is just the way the New Testament Scholars do it's the way historians Write the past and give you examples if you want but the two most important things in historiography are the two e early and eyewitness early and eyewitness data and what you have if the story goes back here and you have three folks talking just 5 Years Later by the way just a few years after that Galatians 2 Paul goes back to Jerusalem he said I laid before them the gospel I was preaching of which he says the resurrection is an indispensable apart Peter's there James the brother of Jesus there now is John's there this is the big four they're the most influential Believers in the early church Paul said I set my gospel before them and they added nothing nothing to me you know what that shows it means Paul didn't make it up it means it didn't come decades later because they're all agreeing that's what that means so on historical principles alone that on the left wants to say hey these are the rules of engagement they've set the rules in this because they came up with this what we have is a report that is early how in the ancient world where the first biography of Alexander is plus 400 years after Alexander the Great we have a report from 38 and we have four major eyewitnesses folks I'm just saying this is only beginning tonight but I think we're well on the basis of saying this is more than snow white or Christian happen [Music] stance okay thank you Gary um Gary has tipped the it open now and we can look at uh some substantial points here um I agree we should look at Paul I mean he's a main man here in fact we should look at both Pauls because if you read the Epistles you'll actually identify a totally different man from the one you read in the book of Acts now that should make you wonder for a start why is the man who is writes these Epistles why is is he this bombastic bully whereas the man you find real written up in the book of Acts is this team player who's on side with the other disciples he's taken he's delivered he's brought here he's brought there that is not the Paul that lays down the law in his Epistles so that at least should make you wonder okay um he mentions this early Creed which I referred to in the Snow White story yeah yeah I agree it it's a Creed the way you can identify it's a Creed if you take the verses before and after you realize they ran on to each other the Creed is there and it wasn't part of the original now let you me give you an alternative to this idea as Gary goes with his his timeline back to the beginning you know there is an alternative that that Creed was not there at the beginning it was inserted afterwards and he mentions uh GT ludman is agreeing with it well I'll give him a scholar Robert price does not okay we can all Quote Scholars Robert Price says that's an interpolation inserted in the 2 century and that's more likely and I'll tell you why that's more likely compare the the possibilities would people who witness an extraordinary event called the resurrection rush off and write down a Creed would they really do that first he was seene of sephus and then he was seen of the disciples etc etc would they really do that where do we get Creeds from you think of the Nan Creed the Apostles Creed various other Creeds of the church where do they originate do they start with those no they are the resolution of church conflict they come out of the struggle of different contended factions of Christianity to agree what they were going to believe and after the fight which was acrimonious often violent if you consider the the the origin of the Nan Creed it came after the battle with the Arians and Aras was murdered you know and then you have the Creed you don't have it to begin with so at least consider the alternative to this earliness of the Creed it's a later interpetation compare that Creed to what is said in in the in the actual gospels first it was scene of sephus what was he what's the Book of John say I thought that was Mary Magdalene you know if you compare the Creed to the gospel story it doesn't Link at all let's take one other very crucial line that perhaps Gary can illuminate Paul in his Creed says Jesus was seen above 500 of the bre Brethren where does it come from certainly not found in the gospels isn't it curious that Matthew Mark Luke and John don't refer to 500 Witnesses of the Resurrection I wonder if Gary can provide an explanation for that because I can it's found in the Buddhist text there's an explanation for you Gary I think we'll be hard pressed to find an explanation for it um let's take another matter relating to Paul notice how it slipped into the dialogue the authentic Epistles of Paul now I would suggest that if you actually start any study of Epistles the Epistles you will realize that from the word go many of them are fake that debate among Scholars is just how many of them are fake everyone seems to agree that Hebrews was not really written by Paul but were any of the others were the prison Epistles you know were the Pastoral Epistles weren't they written by the church to try and establish the the power of the Bishops later in the 2nd Century that whole genre of Pauline literature was fabricated and okay it is more difficult with some core Epistles to identify quite when they originated and quite by whom they were written but clearly there are several writers involved in the soal Pauline Epistles so there's many gaps in in in uh in in in Gary's story there um he uses as as I've noticed the word data data really relating to supposed events I would say if you try and build out a timeline which part of the story do you begin with a assuming is correct because you can build a timeline so long as you assume for example I'm sure Gary will assume well Jesus was crucified and there was an empty tomb let's assume that bit then let's try and work out the rest but why should we make that assumption should we not actually find evidence of everything you know if we are to believe that this is truth and not a fairy tale should it not all be substantiated so I put it to you there are so many areas of concern and doubt in the story this cleverly wrapping it up with so multiple Witnesses is all a fraud it's all a fraud and we can go on to look at these many witnesses which I'm sure Gary would want to site and actually look what they say and when you look at what they say it really doesn't substantiate the claims made for them so I repeat we are dealing with a fairy story [Applause] I commend you on getting what I count seven arguments in in five minutes that's brilliant and I mean that let me try to respond to all seven first question which Paul do we believe the Paul of the acts or the Paul of the Epistles it's very easy in terms of my debate tonight I've already said I'll be glad to go back and talk about the gospels and I'll put acts in that group but I'm starting with Paul's authentic Epistles tonight more about that in a moment so it's very easy if somebody was to were to say to me acts contradicts Paul I say hey I disagree and I'll be glad to talk to you about that tonight but that's not what I'm trying to do I'm going to stay with Paul so if you say you must choose must choose I'll take Paul it's that easy a later book can't militate against the early one and by the way who concludes that John Dominic crosson he said when AXS goes against Paul I'll take Paul every time I didn't think I agreed with Damon too much but I agree the Creed Bob price is a very good friend of mine and he and I have dialogued you can find this on our website Bob okay we're not going to settle with head count Bob is about there might be three other scholars in the world I my bibliography in the resurrection is over 3,000 sources Bob is about the only person who believes this portion is interpolated Richard carrier from the same internet infidels group in America Richard thinks Bob is incorrect now I think I mean that can happen but if we find a person and say well Bob disagrees with you okay without exaggerating in fact I have a book right here where you can check the endnote out I have 30 scholars in here all of them Skeptics all of them critics all of them agnostics and they agree with this timeline now look I'm not saying it's 30 to1 therefore I'm right I'm not saying that but I'm saying if it's remember my league combat if it's 30 to1 it's probably because the reasons are better on that side okay thirdly oh and he also made the comment about Aryan the Aryan Creed I might have misunderstood him but it sound like he said it wasn't even around then folks let me tell you something all 58 verses of First Corinthians are in the earliest papi they might even be dated from 150 but by 200 anyway all 58 verses are there so it's nothing that took you know like Aryans would be fourth Century it's there Mary Magdalene or Peter sure Paul starts out with Peter and so does Luke by the way as far as the men are concerned now I admit the women appearances to the women predate the amend we can discuss this but in the early church sorry ladies they generally did not let women testify in a court of law they did but not usually now I think that's wrong and we probably all think it's wrong but that according to most Scholars is why Paul did not start it's not Paul anyway it's a pre-a line Creed but that's why they did not start with the women because if you're going to put your best foot for you know put Peter out there and the very first appointment appearance to the men we're told by both Paul and Luke is to Peter 500 Witnesses at one time thank you 500 Witnesses at one time this is like the acts objection he says well tell me where this thing fits in the gospels on the methodology I'm doing tonight it's irrelevant now I'll tell you where gospel Scholars put it I I'll just go ahead and put that in there but this isn't the point I'm trying to make gospel Scholars will often try to to say the most likely place for the appearance of the 500 in the gospel narrative is the appearance in the mountain in Galilee if 5,000 could be out there for the feeding of the 5,000 or the sermon of the mount certainly 500 could be out there I'm just telling you what the commentary say but once again the reason I'm not trying to put Paul into the gospels is because the way I set this argument out I'm only using Paul so to say why can't we find this in the gospels is a red hearring to me I want to talk about Paul seven Epistles he said well look there's some Epistles that almost everybody at least critical Scholars think Paul didn't write and he's correct there's 13 Epistles Hebrews is not one of them but there's 13 Epistles of bear Paul's name I already said GA WS uh um the list that most Scholars will give you it's about seven G WS throws Colossians in there but watch if there's if there's Epistles that we don't use guess what we just won't use them it's not an issue let's talk about the seven or eight authentic Epistles because if if he if he says I won't agree with you on the pastorals the example he used I'd say let's set the pastorals aside for tonight let's talk about only two I only use two text 1 Corinthians 15 and the break between Galatians 1 to Galatians 2 it's the only one I'm using I don't care about books that somebody thinks aren't written by Paul let's talk about the ones that the agnostic Bart armman New Testament specialist says are the Undisputed Pauline Epistles he basically by Undisputed he means virtually no one disagrees let's talk about the positive M material not red herand the last thing I have here data and the timeline folks let me remind you this timeline is not Gary habber masses I did not in I did not invent this this came from the 60s and 70s from highly critical Scholars the Garrett ludman Dom crosson the uh I mention them the BART aans of the world this is not a Believers contrived timeline it's a skeptically contrived timeline if it's contrived but what I'm saying is it didn't come from us so critical Scholars do it I think it's fair if we use data that we share for good reasons [Applause] so we now move into a time of uh open discussion between um Gary and Ken and uh which of you would like to would like to begin well if I may make a response um thank you Gary uh for that contribution I mean it does open a door to many things you mention about you know quoting Scholars which I I know you you you you you you are fond of um a ratio of 30 to1 in terms of whether they agree more with you than than than with the position I'm stating that's possibly true I wouldn't doubt that the those who doubt the official story are quite a minority I mean does that really surprise anybody I mean isn't it easier to believe than to think you know um he mentions Bart Herman Erman as as a a uh a skeptic what he doesn't mention is is he actually used to be a born again Christian Evangelical why has he changed why is he changed because he's because he studied the manuscripts in great detail over a long period of time he lost his faith because he studied the data now we're talking here of evidence for a fantastic event you all are familiar with that that that phrase extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence well I'm not going to push the point that far but I would say this that we need pretty good evidence not flaky evidence not marginal evidence not evidence that we can interpret with a favorable Christian gloss now let me make a comparison if I may graphically between the evidence of the Resurrection which appears in the New Testament there it is including the the slight references in Revelations to the to the one who who uh comes like with with a a sword from his mouth but you know the other standard references of the Resurrection they fit quite comfortably on an A4 sheet rather few than 600 words to give you a comparison of that something else that has something in the order of 600 words a McDonald Happy Meal menu now would anybody here be convinced let's say of the nutritional value of a McDonald's Happy Meal on the basis of 600 words can we be convinced therefore that a few pages of the Gospel speak of some extraordinary event he said I can interrupt you Ken y should be wow this is great okay Bart Erman used to be an Evangelical this is our discussion time and he he's a neat guy he really is Bart armman used to be an Evangelical Ken we're not going to this by going back and forth by the way Bart Erman has said in his most recent book it wasn't the manuscripts it was the problem of evil that bothered him the most so it wasn't problem of evil it wasn't a and and then later I'm sure he's bothered by the text but he just said in his latest book his latest Revelation is it's the problem of evil but you know what if you if you want to start going down the line I mean we could say hey this guy's converted by starting the evidence this guy's converted by and the and the list is long as far as extraordinary events require extra extraordinary evidence I I keep saying over and over again I'm only using text and data as Allowed by almost the furthest folks down on that side I didn't invent this here's my point if they think it's good enough to talk about it perhaps you'll allow me to use their datea and talk about it I I don't think that that's that's weak I think there's a lot of other data here we could put on the table I'd be glad to do that for example I mean this is this would just be it'd be a wild Herring but if somebody's saying something like well how am I supposed to believe in Resurrection today I mean this is an extraordinary event I think he started something like this it started with this kind of idea uh you know we're in the fairy tale World um I'll just put something out here and we can pursue it during the Q&A if you want to recent studies of of near-death experiences uh highly evidenced ones I've been studying this phenomena for 30 years this is the only point I'm going to make by bringing this up if we have evidence for an afterlife if we do and I think we do then all of a sudden the resurrection doesn't look like the most extraordinary thing in the world that takes extraordinary evidence it looks like a specific case of a phenomena for which we have other data so I'll just throw that out there if someone wants extraordinary evidence let's talk about empirical data from the present we can do that but you know I I'd love to go back and forth here on some Scholars I'd love to talk about you know Bob price and and you do know right that Bob's like the only guy in the universe who holds that view I mean there are there's a couple other people but almost nobody I don't think so I don't think so but surely the nature of a debate is to go backwards and forwards go ahead how many how many others do you know Bes I don't want to discuss Scholars that's that's that that's just C you know it's just what I don't want to go through a just quoting names I'd rather deal with some facts here the interesting thing Gary in your Exposition is how interestingly you backtrack from your overall view to minimalistic claims then okay if we can prove that quite a few of the Pauline Epistles are fraudulent then you're quite happy to Dish them go make make do with the ones you've got left well you know is this a scientific method I mean what sort of method it is this is the sort of thing that I I began by saying Christian apologetics is simply the determination to defend ancient truths at all costs and so you will bring forward but atheism is not that you will bring forward any and every humanism is you can to defend an indefensible position you know that that should but Ken that's that's precisely why I've chosen this methodology not to cite my facts Dom crosson Garett ludeman the Jesus seminar are not very well known for being Evangelical apologist in fact they really hate it and I'm using their data and I'm saying what's the best argument for this Dom crwon has just said recently Tom Wright for those of you who know Bishop Tom Wright we're going to be together in London just two days great guy 800 page book on the resurrection he argues the evidence guess what he's debated Dom crosson three times I was there all three times and I heard Dom say this in all three debates do you know what I've been thinking about this material for a whole long long time and I think Tom's right on this what now I want to make it clear Dom does not believe in the resurrection but he thinks Tom's argument is right on so I'm saying this doesn't sound like a fallacious Christian apologist believers are out of control we're using Don Cron's type data and going after it they're your friends Gary surely the point here is if we are rational we will be led by the evidence we will not put the HSE be behind the cart and say this is the truth that we want to establish we know the truth it comes to us by faith therefore what facts can we purport to prove this truth now that is not a scientific method that is simply apologetic I don't argue that way in fact what you may not know about me is I spent 10 years as a skeptic and you ready I used to debate Christians and I used to tell them they were crazy and I either became a Buddhist or I was very close to be I I don't know why but I was somewhere else down the religious Trail I came back to this not because I'm exercising faith and I'm just golly gee looking for facts to back up my faith I said what do I do with this data and frankly this is just my personal testimony doesn't mean a lot lot but I mean it was the resurrection that jerked me back from this kind of stuff not okay here comes my faith please let me find some data it was the other way around well I I I you that is what you say but I I I am losing track of the number of Christian apologists who claim to have been hardheaded atheists you know it's it's now PA of the course well I have to say I have never been a Christian I have always been a hard-headed atheist and I have never seen anything that would come close to making me think hey the resurrection looks like a real event you what you need to come over to my house in the states we'll talk over soccer and we'll be we'll be working on that I I'll I'll happily do that but I think if we are to try if we are attempting to prove a historical truth we can't begin with a conclusion and say how can we come out with that result what's the conclusion well your conclusion is the resurrection is an historical fact what ever no I'm saying if you go back to do you entertain the possibility then it may not be true absolutely you do absolutely okay well then there is hope then there is hope sir yes sir I absolutely maintain it and I will absolutely give it up hear me I will absolutely give it up if the data are not there well tell me which of your defenses of the Resurrection then really convinces you never mind all this special pleading which of all of them really convince you let's take one prct let me give you for example in many of your books in fact all of them probably you make this claim that the disciples suffered unto death for their for their beliefs no I don't say they suffered under death I said they were willing to suffer it's no no no you know why the reason why I do that Ken well it's safer it's safer because the evidence doesn't support it that's right exactly not the not the safer one the evidence one I don't say that and just today at Oxford University I said to the students don't say that all the disciples died for their faith we don't have early data for that and I went through it the reason I don't say it is not because it's safer I say it because we don't have data but the four people who are there in um uh Jerusalem we do have first century data for three of the four Peter Paul and James the brother of Jesus only John we do not have a first centur but I don't go around saying we can prove the seven the other disciples there's about seven of them youus I think I don't cite youus he's too late fails my own rules yes okay do you want to qu quote the Epistle of Clement I'd love to what do you want to know about it well okay because that that because that is one of your standard defenses that that they even Peter and Paul died am I not that's correct what's wrong with Clement yeah well shall we shall we actually quote the words does he actually say they were martyred he both said yes no he does not he does not well it depends on which here we go it depends on which Manu there's two translations of Clement one is very very clear they suffered martyrdom the weaker of the two all the it says the weaker of the two the the strong one specifically says they testified to Jesus Christ and went to their graves as Martyrs believing the stronger one the the even the weakest translation says something like this it says Paul and Peter went to their reward believing they died he says they died okay I I I mean I think that's closer to the word I have which says nothing it says nothing they they they did their work for Christ as it would be and then they died maybe they were with their Lord in heaven no evidence that they were ever Marts no I no no okay here's where we can we can argue about it all night but the scholars interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5 Clement 5 not the First Corinthians of Paul but Clement 5 is that Clement is talking about martyrdom I'll even say I'll bet you you'll find that if you go back to the research but of the stronger statement it's it's clearly true and now James James the brother Jesus and can we can we declare what the original meaning of the word Mar was what do you mean can we declare the the word Mar actually means witness it doesn't mean anyone who suffered and died do you know who it started with well I'm sure you will tell us Justin Martyr second century okay much later than your your a sure but my point is just to establish the word martyr well it's 50 years later it's not hugely later he goes to his death for his testimony as a Christian philosopher and he dies he dies for that by the way the other one is James and it's reported by Josephus the stoning of James the four we can come back to that one but I'd like to stick with this point about what Christians understand by the idea of persecution and what Christians understand by the idea of martyrdom because it's quite clear that early Christians certainly f any form of treatment that didn't Accord with their wishes was some form of persecution that if their family were critical of their Christian faith they were being persecuted and their martyrdom was actually to witness to the faith that they had had nothing to do with suffering unto death or a willingness to suffer unto death and we really don't have as you say of most of the so-called 12 Apostles we could argue about the the four that we do have okay Paul gives a list of things he suffered remember Shipwrecked three times beaten 40 minus one actually um beaten 40 - 1 three times he's stoned and left for dead outside Paul lists these list these things he went through and then tradition tells us he was finally uh beheaded during the raid of Nero in the early 60s no evidence okay but all I'm saying is I think that's a fair definition of persecution being stoned and left for dead whipped 3 times 40-1 lashes I think those are fair definitions I think he's Justified and saying it was persecuted how how would that be so if we're dealing with a religious tract that has no basis in fact how do we know that what's the religious track how do we know that what Paul wrote was actually truthful who else who else validates the claims of Paul unlike Jesus Christ CHR which you can claim is referred to here and there no nobody else refers to Paul he doesn't appear in any secular history at all he me he's is he is he does appear in one secular source and he does appear in five Christian sources that can be considered early now if Christians are prejudiced because they mentioned Paul then atheists are prejudiced for confirming atheism I mean it's not like atheists are automatically valueless and Christians have have all kinds of values both sides have access to grind both sides have access to grind I don't think anyone makes themselves Rich by being an atheist but plenty of people make themselves Rich by being Christian what does that have to do with who's they have a vested interest in maintaining untruths in a way that an unbel does not but you don't have an extra grind you just come at this totally neutrally and and you don't have any belief you bring nothing to the data Ken I'm not I'm not being nasty but a cure for that is a course in philosophy I like anybody else including yourself Gary have subjective views on things sure do and so do I but but what is the more extraordinary claim then that that God exists and raises people from the dead or in the absence of any evidence to that effect that it's not true well K it's certainly not in the absence of evidence but but you say which is more extraordinary see your comment betrays the same kind of angle the the Prejudice that we all have it it betrays the same thing when you say what in the world could make you believe in God or Resurrection or afterlife or something like that that's a complicated thesis that we're unwarranted and conceding only from a naturalistic Viewpoint if God exists if okay and if there's an after life and if there's a resurrection if it's all of a sudden not just it's just not uncomplicated it's the answer for the universe what I mean is for you to say for you to say that's an extraordinary thesis and incredible to believe because if you're an atheist of course it is that shows that kind of angle that I'm saying philosophy will kind of knock out of you if you take a philosophy class it it tells us we all have an ax to grind and we and and your view from my angle is incredible and my view from your angle is incredible that both shows we have an angle I don't believe the rejection of the extraordinary and the Fantastic and the fabulous in the absence of Clear Proof is an axter Grine that should be the position that we all adopt we should not believe the extraordinary unless it can be disproved I mean that would be lunacy why don't we believe in in in Jack and the bean stalk or snow white or any any such story we're back at the beginning of your paper your speech which was took some notes here it's sad that religion is still with us today Ken the reason we're still talking about religion in the city of David Hume is be listen if there were no data and a bunch of Fanatics from both sides because we're all you know everyone's got an exr running around giving both sides it wouldn't have survived the reason we're still talking about it and there's a Tom Wright who's taught at both Oxford and Cambridge that there's a Jimmy Dunn at Durham that there's a Larry herado right here at Edinburgh the reason these folks are around that a uh a Richard you know Richard bur at London Richard bam just retires from the reason that goes on in Academia guess what I think they would be drummed out of court if there weren't some data to talk about it wouldn't be around because listen if these guys are doing this kind of stuff folks let me tell you about my belief I believe in Christianity now let's all try this semester to find some facts to back up our faith I don't think they'd be full professors I don't think they'd be around it I I I I feel very I I feel too strongly about the British universities to say those guys hold important chairs for reasons now quoting the names isn't going to help us but the name show data the name show reasons to believe and I think the reason they hold these chairs Larry herado I understand is the head of the department here at Edinburgh uh the reason they're still alive is because there's still data to talk about like this right here what you are not acknowledging in that statement Gary is that the church is an institution of society that dominated Europe for 1500 years we have only escaped its clutches in the last 200 you know of course there is a religious establishment and it it has it its centers of power and authority it has all the the the the gloss of being part of the establishment of course it it regards any rational CRI as equally as fanatical as itself so the church runs Oxford and cambrid and it's if the origins of those universities are very much but I mean if if the pope or uh uh Rowan you know uh Rowan Williams is going to say something like this is what we believe in this country I think you ought have chairs at Durham and Edinburgh and that's not going to put Oxford doesn't listen to the church but you're put in history backwards you're put in history backwards where was were those senses of authority before the modern era they were in the hands of the church that's fine but this is 2008 and this is a secular University system in your country in my country these are secular University Systems well you have more than a secular University system that's fine okay fine Ken in a secular University system I'll ask the same question you asked when you started your paper why are we still talking about this in a secular University system with major chairs at Oxford Cambridge and Edinboro why it's not because there's nothing to talk about or we wouldn't be talking about him as you wish as you wish there's more to be said there um but we'll turn now to some Q&A and uh if you'd like to raise your hands the stewards with the roing mics will come to you okay seeing quite a few questions around uh gentleman uh in the middle there y yeah that's you okay try and get the no sorry behind you there yes yourself that's it okay you were talking about a secular University system and stuff like that I believe you're from Liberty univers which was founded by Jerry fwell right who who said said if you can burn this University down if it ever becomes liberal um you have to sign up to a code where you where you say that you believe in the Bible before you join University is that is that right I I didn't hear your last question sorry you have to you have before you join L University you have to sign a cour which says you believe in the B the B is that not the case I do well anyone who wants to study no that's not true no you could be an atheist and be accepted at Liberty University really yes sir Ken can go to Liberty in fact I hope he doesit dances AR movies drinking smoking pornog entering the bedroom of the sex and having abortion I'm no I understand repeat the question to use if you want to use evidence and data the back of your are you good good question and and I appreciate his attitude in case you didn't hear he said I'm not you know picking on you and so on I've been asked to repeat the question I'm probably not going to do a great job with repeating it but it goes something like this you talk about the secular University system that's because I'm in this country and I was talking about guys who teach it those major schools I mentioned but he said what about your University it's a religious school uh don't people don't Christians have to don't students have to be Christians to sign a statement of faith to go there and no drinking and no this and no this and no this um no you can be an atheist and and come to Liberty University now is it a Christian University yes it is but listen I make no qualms about being an Evangelical Christian I do not hide that it's everything I write nobody who knows me thinks I'm trying to hide that or trying to pretend like Liberties like Oxford nothing like that I'm just saying that here's here's my whole point the guys I'm quoting are from Harvard Yale Stanford Oxford [Music] Cambridge dis or dis any other would you really become would I still be there no you're right I wouldn't be I wouldn't go there and hold that but that's not my point my point here here's my whole question using the fellas that I started tonight from these major British universities and many many other schools here's my question can I as a Christian okay if you say well listen tell me the truth what do you think about the Bible you're asking and if you ask me this I'll say Hey listen I think the Bible is a word of God I think it's a trustworthy book I would tell you that but I'm but that's not the way I started tonight I want to you I want to ask are there enough pieces of data from well-known Scholars that I don't have to do this from my viewpoint I will not come here and say I believe the Bible's INSP let's start with that and see if there's a resurrection wow there's a resurrection okay I'm going to believe no I'm saying can we start with people like I won't repeat them again but these major universities around us here can we start with their presuppositions and get there and I'm saying yes it's really irrelevant where I teach you what I believe I'll just concede for you I'm an Evangelical Christian I'm okay with that but here's what I'm asking could you still get there on non-evangelical presuppositions that's my question joose can can I can I make a contribution here because we've heard the question I hope and we've heard Gary's response let me quote from Liberty University's own website and it reads as follows faculty join Liberty only after completing a RI rigorous interview process that confirms a born again relationship with Christ a clear understanding of the purpose and aims of Liberty now to me that doesn't sound as if that would take on board an a a IST that no no no I'm talk I'm talking about a student a student he said I I thought he said could you go there and you definitely can be an atheist let's move on to the next question uh yes um you uh said that that uh the the the the story that you told would um uh Supply sufficient evidence for um uh a non-evangelical to consider that that story is correct well on the basis that that statement is made then is it not the case that Joseph Smith who we certainly know existed and had eyewitnessed testimony of the Angel Moroni um his his uh testimony which is much more recent and and followed by you know millions of Americans as well or whatever else who are often very intelligent people why why should we believe um a possibly conjectural figure from 2,000 years ago and not believe Joseph Smith or um uh um the prophet Muhammad or actually for that matter uh one of perhaps um 20 million Americans who have been abducted by aliens I mean particularly uh given the fact that the gospels do not agree with each other in almost any major respect as far as uh you know when or even where or by whom or by how many people uh this individual was seen I mean Matthew 27:53 tells us that the grave opened after an earthquake uh as Jesus died and 3 days later uh you know dozens or a large quantity of the Jewish saints were resurrected as well walked up into the city of Jerusalem and were seen by many people now you know if we if we throw that out uh as evidence it's funny how we never hear Christians talking about that um you would have thought that that would be a spectacular piece of evidence for the for the Divinity of Christ um but you know that is very very much under the carpet if we throw that out what what on Earth warrant could we have to suppose that let's say he did exist right this this this guy uh thank you I think we've got the to the question okay I I didn't I didn't hear it how did he even recognize it was Jesus he never repeat it that I W have to the first part of the question was about the existence of a Mormon church why should um um this audience believe you Gary over uh Joseph Smith and his account of um his account of faith and the second part of the question was about Matthew 27:53 uh to do with the um the breaking of the tombs I understand in Matthew 27 why why why don't Christians use that evidence more why don't we use it more okay two questions Mormonism Matthew 27 folks it's not my job tonight I'm not trying to go after any other belief system I'm not trying to be say you know you're loser for this or that that's not my job but if I were to investigate the Mormon claim and say isn't this the same sort of claim you have eyewitnesses they were early I suppose that's I guess that's where you're going they're early eyewitnesses so on one major problem with this is that there are witnesses who were supposed to have seen the plates and so on and so on and virtually every single one of them whose name is not Smith left or got kicked out out of the church now if you if you try to import that into the New Testament you'd say well we have these 12 guys but Peter got kicked out for this so and so walked out what I'm saying is it's a different situation I'm just saying it's not analogous okay it's not analogous on the grounds of data as far as Matthew 27 I have a really easy response and it goes like this I'm not trying to defend everything in the Bible tonight I want to talk about this and if you said to me I don't like I'm not saying you're saying this but if you said I don't like Matthew 27 and I said man it's part of it you go well I I don't like it you go fine but I'm discussing this we could you could I let's just make it this way I could say to you you're right you're right have it your way at Matthew 27 okay I mean I it's not the resurrection of Jesus so I could say hey I'm here to discuss the resurrection what do you do about this see again let me repeat this my methodology is to accept what critical Scholars accept and to talk about that they don't like Matthew 7:53 and following you're right so I don't bring it up because it's not one of the datm they want to speak about so I'm not free to speak about it because I will only in other words my methodology voids the whole thing unless unless critical Scholars concede it they don't concede that you're correct so I won't use it I don't talk about it because I'm in their genre I'm in their timeline this is developed by them not by conservatives well yeah I'll only make a small point because I think the point is well made if the the basis of of of Gary's claims for the resurrection of true Christianity or that particular the mainstream Christianity it should surely be true of the Mormon church I mean in a sense we have no doubt that the Smith family existed there's no ambiguity there so yeah why you believe one or the other but of course really in our heart hearts we know they're both fraudulent um and of course the the opening of the tombs and and you know G Gary's methodology has to be admired it's pick a mix whatever will fit you know if that one wasn't won't work let's get the next one you know it's it's admirable approach you know like any contingency will do doesn't convince me let's go on to the next question please okay let's have um let's have uh this lady at the front here please thank you chairman uh well of course we're talking about everything because it's so obscure the Bible is so obscure but we're really going on about Source criticism tonight and I wanted to ask you really about what's Paul's angle and put it to you like this say you have a Jewish group who have created a religion their own God and it's one God and there's only one God don't you need then to to do something about the rest of the world how are you going to bring them into the story and wouldn't you need to create an alternate uh angle for them to pursue like the noahide wouldn't you need to create something wouldn't Paul actually have needed to create a new religion the sidekick to for Judaism would be Christianity wooden soul have been dubious wouldn't he have a vested interest in creating something to bring us all into the belief in this one God a Jewish God isn't there some uh angle there that he has that we need to think of if we're really looking at source criticism okay I'm using this whole thesis assumes Source criticism so I'm using Source criticism and that Source criticism is a generic title under which there are several kinds of criticism and that's the sord I'm using here as far as why would Paul why wouldn't Paul want to do something like this from every Source we know whether it's Acts or Paul's own Epistles these these genuine Epistles Philippians chapter 1 Galatians chapter 1 Paul 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says I persecuted the church when he was Saul let's put this way there's not a speck of evidence that implies or says or indicates not a speck of first centur data that says that Paul was tired wanted to give up wanted to switch sides wanted to universalize Judaism I think that'd be a very foreign set of ideas to to New Testament scholarship I mean critical New Testament scholarship I don't see Paul want to do anything he wanted to wipe the sect out he said I thought I was doing God a favor by taking men women and children imprisoning or killing them if we accept acts as historical he sits at the feet of the man Steven while he's stoned I don't see any evidence to believe that Paul wants to start a religion now see here's one of the things I would say why do we need to give a bunch of evidences for this but we can have a theory like maybe Paul went off the deep end or maybe Paul wanted to spread a universal religion but no evidence for it there's no evidence that Paul wanted to move in a different direction but sometimes we feel that if we give the opposite side we can speak without evidence sometimes we can just postulate my other reason for that number one no evidence Paul says he did the opposite second on this timeline that was one of the main things I was referring to this wasn't Paul's idea Paul got it from somebody else Paul gets it from Peter James John now now Paul also saw Jesus if you believe the New Testament accounts but what I'm saying is the whole point of this was it wasn't Paul's idea and then when I when I mentioned herat and Jimmy Dunn and uh Richard bacham taking it back to 30 ad Paul wasn't a Believer I mean that's when he was fighting against the church so in other words the people who were around who were teaching the deity of Christ and the resurrection before Paul that would show you it's not Paul's idea if it predates Paul it's not Paul so I would say two large arguments are number one you have to answer this data and why people have it before Paul and my first point was we don't have one bit of data that says that Paul was this or that decided to start a new religion I don't think we're justified in starting something new uh starting a thesis without data yeah if yeah to to just contribute there um certainly some Scholars do maintain that that Paul is the true author of Christianity my own comment would be that we shouldn't look for a simplistic explanation for the phenomenon of of Christianity the Christian world today is a house divided we all know that in many many sects it was no different in the early days Christianity has always been divided and certainly in the in in that crucial period of the first couple of centuries it was there were a multitude of of different Creeds different christianities and the poine trend was just one of them and and that's that's a fact that we should realize that the gospels as we know them are the result of a struggle between those groups over a couple of hundred years let's turn to the uh next question please and yes this gentleman down at the front please thank you than this is a question for Mr Humphries primarily and it's just a question of motive really um I was wondering why uh what it is about the person of Jesus um that you think persuaded so many thousands of Jews who had clung to their beliefs religiously if you exclus pun um for several centuries um in the face of considerable persecution from most of the Empire's G what was it about the person of Jesus that uh provoked them to throw in or at least substantially modify many of these beliefs or to uh to put it another way um what was it particularly about uh the early Believers that made them so incredibly persuasive um that they could well really alter a religion that had uh showed remarkable resilience um in not being possible to alter it for so many centuries yeah yeah a good question a good question and it it's it's one of the the pillars of of the uh the historical Jesus school that there was this Mass conversion and the church grew in some explosive fashion the problem is outside of Christian references that that is that is a position that one cannot maintain the the interesting thing about early Christianity is its invisibility it wasn't so apparent now we have the Alterna we have the option of believe in the Big Bang origin in other words the birth of a messiah uh from a virgin and and the crucifixion and the resurrection sh that would be one explanation if you want to but another explanation which I think is more convincing is that Christianity emerged from Judaism as a result of the suffering of the Jewish people they had waged and lost two major Wars with Rome and that was a crisis for their religion and that I think was the impetus for for the the the emergence of the various Christian sects and it fits the the evidence more closely because you cannot no matter how many claims are made I know there is there are references in in the book of Acts but you know five 3,000 uh converts it claims after after the episode of of speaking in tongues you know but you know do we really believe that happened there is no historical residue of any Mass conversion to the Jews until a century or so later so you know I don't accept that that that something miraculous came along and and converted Jews from from a faith it was the suffering in the wars against Rome that led to their religion breaking into more than one element Ro quickly two recent Jewish Scholars non-Christian no Christian acts to grind Pinkus Le 1982 the resurrection of Jesus a Jewish perspective and very very recently just appeared off the press Gaz of heresh Professor of Jewish history professor emeritus Oxford University two Jews not Christian both examine the data conclusion Jesus was raised from the dead no act to grind I think that's interesting nobody he says nobody outside of the book of Acts recorded the explosion of early Christianity let me give you some names Josephus tacitus suetonius three Roman historians if you call count Josephus is a Roman historian con is a Jewish historian whatever you want all three of them tacus says after this pernicious Doctrine was destroyed he said when pilate killed Jesus he says the thing broke out again and spread around it came all the way around the Empire to Rome so does suetonius Josephus talks about this I'm just saying we have this recorded from other people and one comment about four gospels came out of a struggle of centuries folks listen the four at the it's the first century closed there were only four gospels in existence it's not my fault if the early church took the only four books there were at that time they just happened to be the Gospels it wasn't like there were 10 others and they ignored them they were the only four that were around in 100 AD G can I make a quick response to that as you well know you you you you mentioned the name Josephus there as a Jewish historian and of course he's a very important source and everybody knows that the single paragraph in the Antiquity in Antiquities of the Jews is at the minimum been tampered with and in all probability is fake and whatever else you might quote as as a source we are indebted to the Christian scribes for copies of them you said probability is what that it's what the Josephus the the the the paragraph that refers to to the the the the tribe of Christians is fake the whole paragraph well you see that that's the point yes we can we Scholars do I know argue well a bit of this testimony has been fake but not all of it but I mean that's a a pretty weak argument almost now listen one guy in the world could hold something and be right I'll admit that but the almost total position in the world is there are phrases in there which are questionable but the statement itself the base statement is correct that testimony comes from James Charlesworth Princeton University not Liberty University's religion department this comes from Princeton University he's tallying up this is his area he talles tallies it up majority of Scholars John drain another British scholar Sterling University says same thing so sure we can debate that by the way the three the three names I mentioned Josephus has the least to say about this tacitus and suetonius say more Su atonia said it spread all the way around the Mediterranean and we failed to stamp it out when it came to Rome that's a huge explosion of belief let's move on to our next question please and there's a gentleman I think at the back in the green y um first I want to thank you both for your very Vivid uh and interesting discussions um like you said Gary there are incredible amount of presuppositions that you both bring and one of yours seems to be that that good historiography means a watertight argument and Ken yours seems to be something along the lines that there's this Canon esque rational man that needs defending from some big bad wolf um or something but what what my question really is is um just to take it away slightly from where you've been is so what I mean if if I was to believe either of your argument what's that got to do with anything and we can see with the plurality questions there's an awful lot of claims to be said even on one issue what is it about your argument that means anything anyway I mean what what is this rational man Ken and what's he meant to look like and Gary so what if your historiography is correct what's that got to do with anything I did not hear it okay so the question was um if we take uh Ken's rational man and if we take uh Gary's account of the resurrection of Jesus on his on um historical grounds what does that got to say to us today I think that's the gist of the question yeah okay what does it have to say today what does it mean did you ask both of us to respond yes yes he did go ahead Ken well what would you say that if I understand the question correctly which and I did have difficulty hearing it um I'd say rational man has has given us the modern world rational man makes it possible to us to be here and speak these words tonight Christianity had its best shot for 15 centuries and what did it give us what did it give us Wars suffering inh Humanity you know sorry that's God has that stopped has that stopped well I doubt it no no it hasn't but you know the progress that Humanity has made is thanks to rational man irrational man gave us nothing and here all I I was ready to say something nice about preaching and whatnot um I have to say something take all the Christian atrocities you want to and dump them together and I'm going to admit Christians fail Christians can be jerks Christians can ignored Jesus and they should have followed him they didn't and if they were more ethical they would have done this and that I admit that but I will say this and that I just saw the statistic the other day over 120 million deaths in the 20th century Alone by atheistic regimes over 120 that doesn't solve anything I'm just saying you can't say because Christians do these dastardly things hey let's look over the fence let's say what's going on over here okay but the question itself a great question I would I would love to chat about I mean I'd like to spend the rest of my career talking about so what I'd like to spend the rest of my career saying what do the resurrection mean I'm down here in this end of things because you can see tonight there's a lot of healthy questions about it and this is where I do my work I think the resurrection speaks about a lot of things today let me just say one thing in first Thessalonians Paul one of those authentic Epistles Paul says Christians grieve when they lose a loved one he says they grieve but not as those without hope if the resurrection occurred if and that says something about an afterlife if that or anything says something about an afterlife I think grieving with hope is a tremendous difference and and progress over grieving without hope now Ken I'm sure is going to say well doesn't this doesn't this all depend on whether the resurrection occurred or not and if if that's where he would go that's what I would say if I were down there and that's correct but I think there's some good reasons for it and and so I would say yeah I think at the end of the day it makes Paul says for example if Christ is not been raised from the dead he we don't have any ethics Christians don't you cannot base an objective ethical system on atheism do you have an ethical system but you can't have an do we want to live with Illusions just because they they make us feel good right but here's what we're debating tonight is it an illusion again what we this in our universities let's have uh one final question please um and we will have um let's have the the gentleman at the back there there we go yes uh in the in the blue top yeah that's you yep thank you both very much uh it's been very very interesting Professor I just I really felt the need to pick up on something you said just there um I was going to ask a different question but uh now you've given me what I think is a more interesting one to ask I mean um you just said 120 million people were killed in atheist regimes in the 20th century you've used the word atheist there but I think what you mean is communist now communism is only one atheist Doctrine it's not even the most popular one in fact my understanding is that there was significant collaboration by religious Believers with communist regimes and communism to me is no more rational and I think what Kenneth has been defending tonight is rationalism above all communism to me is no more rational than any form of theism I just wondered if you had any comment on that [Applause] I I'm sorry the question was uh communism is no more rational than any form of theism and that um essentially that communism wasn't necessarily an atheistic belief it was actually supported by Christians according to the questioner it was what supported by Christians or those of some of th those are holding some sort of Christian conviction okay and what are you asking me an argument that is used very regularly um as soon as the atrocities of religions are raised by the secular and what I would call the rational site religious Believers naturally fire backwards but communism do dot dot and I say e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
