Robert Price

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega Ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 460 to or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

James white And good morning, welcome to the dividing line, I'd like to take you back to Sometime in 2008.

I'm not sure actually when this aired come to think of it. I Think this is a 2007 program if I recall correctly

But in 2008 I played for you a portion of an interview that took place between the infidel guy

And Bart Ehrman and it was a fascinating interview because Ehrman ended up having to lecture this fellow on the existence of Jesus and it was interesting

Basically all Ehrman could provide him was sort of a I'm a historian believe me type defense But at one point during the discussion

And you could tell the infield guy didn't like the fact that Ehrman was basically doing the hey,

I'm a historian I've done this for 30 years. Believe me type thing and So The discussion going back and forth had something to do with the existence of Jesus and Ehrman basically said well look, you know

Paul Met with Jesus relatives. Well, how do you know that? Well, he says in Galatians. Well, how you know, he wrote

Galatians well, everybody knows he wrote Galatians and you know, I found it interesting because it was putting the shoe on the other foot in essence and I found that interesting and rather provocative along those lines but anyway

Finally the infidel guy asks the question What do you think about Robert Price now?

Most of you are aware of the fact that coming up in May at the CRI National Conference I will be debating

Robert Price on the subject of the truthfulness of the Bible and It is interesting to listen to Ehrman's dismissing of Price in this clip because you can tell this is where the infidel guys have been getting a lot of his material

And so I want to play this and listen listen as the infidel guy

Clearly does not like what is going on here and and listen as as Ehrman And he discussed the infidel guy

Right. What do you think about dr. Bob price dr. Bob prices? You don't know.

You don't know dr. Robert M. Price He's the guy that denied Jesus existed and I think he's pretty much leaning more toward that.

Yes. Yeah, I Don't think he I mean, he's not I don't really know him.

No. Hmm. Interesting. Why would I oh my molly me he's he's a theologian as well and You can look him up he has too many to mention right now

I'm deconstructing Jesus. Have you heard that one and Incredible shrinking son. Yeah, he's actually communicated with me and he told me some of his doubts and I've been puzzled by it because I I don't really understand.

I Haven't seen any evidence that he's a deuce Hmm. Okay. Well, I'm a little there you go

Well, I would suggest maybe you maybe you want to reason this stuff But again, I know you're so busy if I read as you like me.

I have a hundred books on the shelf I think I still haven't got a chance to read you because I get books every week, but Okay, but yeah, but yeah

I mean he's quite a bit people opposing them all in a room the colossal Apostle the shrinking son of man But as you know, oh, yeah shrinking son of man.

Yeah. All right. Yeah, okay. Okay That guy. Yeah Yeah, so yeah, so I mean there so there are some people who've been researching even longer than you have and they also have you

Know doctors double doctors. They've been researching this some I think he's even a professor at it. You know, he's not Teaching at what was he?

Camera where he was wait, actually he did or does I can't remember now. I don't keep up with him right now, but But he was at some place instructing on I Can't remember now, but too bad.

He's not here Maybe maybe one of the fans would call up and give you can give us a call in here But anyway, but anyway, my point was though I guess

I mean for me I like to consider myself pretty rational guy and I try to stay away from Absolutes as much as possible whenever someone says nobody this can't be or this is impossible

Things like that New Testament scholars, I know nobody doubts that Paul wrote

Galatians, that's what I said and That's not an absolute statement. I mean you okay.

I'm sorry I guess I misunderstood you earlier sound like you didn't you didn't sound like you kind of qualified it just now But before just like you say anybody you just said nobody thinks there's nobody thinks that's and I said, well,

I'm sure It's not nobody of the thousands of scholars. I know doubts it right, right okay, none of the ones you know granted and I know just I know all the leading figures in the field

I'm you know, I'm I'm very active in the Society of Biblical Literature and You know,

I I know I know all the professors in the major universities in the country who teach this Right.

Mm -hmm. Okay. Well, I mean, all right this I mean it is again I mean, I'm not

I don't know what is also a Hector Avalos somebody brings up somebody bring some up as well Right and Okay, so there you have basically the dismissal of Bob Price by by Bert Ehrman who's that?

I'm not what books did he write? He didn't teach anywhere. Well, actually he has He at the

Johnny Coleman Theological Seminary, which I've never heard of before but that's where he has taught and of course

If you're an atheist, I'm not sure what you're doing teaching a theological seminary, which may be why I've never heard that seminary

But doesn't matter to me Listening to that You know,

I'm I'm like, well, okay, you know, here's someone who's basically dismissed. So why am I debating him? Well as I have been listening to Bob Price.

I have discovered that Well things are a little bit different than than I expected

Bob Price does not mind being in the minority and He openly admits that his views are not the majority of scholarship that he's in a small minority and sometimes he holds a unique position

And then basically says so what Now since most of us listening to this webcast also hold minority positions on a lot of things you can at least respect that and Recognize there are times you need to go

Just because the majority of people say they believe something doesn't mean the majority people have ever given any thought whatsoever to why they believe it

They've just been told that and they've accepted that and that's just all there is to it Whenever I hear whenever I hear

Bart Ehrman saying well, the majority of scholars don't believe in the tenacity theory anymore How many of them have actually ever?

Addressed the issue in any in -depth way whatsoever or how many are just following the flow

Be very very careful of Majority arguments along those lines. Sometimes they're relevant most of the time they're not and so what

I want to do today is is I want to introduce you to Bob Price and Partly to just ask for you to pray for the upcoming debate.

I'm Investing as much time as I possibly can in preparation for it

I've listened to what I'm gonna be playing for you multiple times already I'm gonna have to invest a lot of time between now and May pretty much all of next month

Tracking down sources and it's such a wide topic That it's gonna be extremely difficult and probably frustrating to cram it into about two and a half hours worth of time but I think it's gonna be one of the one of the better debates we've had because this is a lively fellow and He's willing to pretty much go after any question around he's not gonna be dodging and ducking and so on and so forth

But he's gonna say some pretty wild things now. I have noticed as is common that He says one set of things when he's talking to when he's in the minority amongst believers and then when he's being introduced in interviewed by atheists, he goes a little bit farther and I will play for you.

I think what will end up being I can I'm actually gonna make a prediction right now What will end up being one of the most important?

Statements introduced into evidence in the debate in May. I won't play that today, but I can can tell you that it was in a

Australian interview that he did with an atheist in Australia Where dr.

Price basically said? That even if the disciples had written the gospel immediately after The life of Jesus it wouldn't make any difference

They see he doesn't believe that that any of the Gospels the Gospels are primarily second -century

He doesn't believe Paul wrote anything attributed to him. He doesn't really believe Jesus existed. He is a a

Pyrrhon ist that is He is the absolute skeptic.

We can't know anything In fact, he remains that way very consistently.

We we can't even know what's going on right now. You can have Hey, you know a Hollywood can do green screening and you know can do all sorts of stuff

We really can't know anything that's going on. We can't do history and of course, that's gonna be one of the issues

I'm gonna be raising is if Your entire system destroys any historiography.

You can't know what's happening in history There's one thing that we absolutely for certain know history took place

Something happened in history and if you're in a situation where you cannot understand that cannot come to know that Then your destructive skepticism has taken you too far.

And that's the situation of Bob price, but I want you to hear Bob price I want you to hear what he has to say

In his debate with William Lane Craig Now I'm not gonna play

Craig's presentation because you've heard it if you've ever heard William Lane Craig Debating the subject of the resurrection of Christ then you have already heard his presentation

I found I found prices response very interesting and I want you to listen in here is

Robert Price responding to William Lane Craig on the subject of the resurrection of Jesus The price will have 20 minutes after you what you just heard about me.

You don't really want to clap admit it I'm going to save response to some of those specific points for the next little go -around

But the reader prepared a statement I came up with and we'll see where it goes from here Dr. Craig often appeals to the consensus of New Testament scholars on behalf of conservative views by contrast

I am glad to confess that the opinion of the majority of scholars makes no difference.

Whatever to me In the world in fact in the Gospels after all, it's a consensus of scholars in the

Sanhedrin that condemns Jesus to death As Francis Schaeffer used to say you can't settle the question of truth by a majority vote

I think Martin Luther and Galileo and others knew that too If I am interested in a question,

I must examine the issues for myself I reject for example Velikovsky's astronomy not because the

Academy sneers at it Which I guess they do but because his methodology seems flawed to me as I understand it and forgive me

But so does dr. Craig's first let me call attention to two fundamental axioms of dr

Craig's work the first is what strikes me as a kind of double truth model The second is the old red herring attempt to evade the principle of historical analogy

By means of the claim that critics reject miracle stories only because they espouse philosophical naturalism the second follows from the first and both commit the fallacy of Ad hominem argumentation even while projecting it on to the opponent

I think he tips his hand toward the first at the end of the first chapter of his book reasonable faith

He draws a distinction there between knowing Christianity is true and showing that it is true

He says what then should be our approach in apologetics. It should be something like this my friend

I know Christianity is true because God's Spirit lives in me and assures me that it is true

And you can know it too because God is knocking at the door of your heart Telling you the same thing if you are sincerely seeking

God then God will give you assurance that the gospel is true Now to show you it's true

I'll share with you some arguments and evidence that I really find convincing But should my arguments seem weak and unconvincing to you that's my fault not

God's It only shows that I'm a poor apologist not that the gospel is untrue

Whatever you think of my arguments God still loves you and holds you accountable I'll do my best to present good arguments to you

But ultimately you have to deal not with arguments, but with God himself page 48 a little further on he saith

Unbelief is at the root a spiritual not an intellectual problem Sometimes an unbeliever will throw up an intellectual smokescreen so that he can avoid personal existential involvement with the gospel pages 49 to 50

Dr. Craig then freely admits his conviction arises from purely subjective factors to me

It sounds no different in principle from the teenage Mormon doorknocker He tells you he knows the

Book of Mormon was written by ancient Americans because he has a warm swelling feeling inside when he asks

God if it's true certain intellectual questions Have to receive certain answers then to be consistent with this revivalistic heartwarming experience

So dr. Craig knows in advance that for example Strauss and Bultmann must have been wrong and by hook or by crook

He'll find a way to get from here to there his enterprise is circular since he grounds

Christian belief upon a Subjective state described already in Christian theological terminology

God's spirit dwelling in his heart, etc Dr. Craig seems to admit that he holds his faith on purely subjective grounds, but Maintains that he's lucky to discover that the facts

Objectively considered happen to bear out his faith Whereas theoretically his faith might not prove true to the facts in actuality

It does in any case it's obvious from the same quotes that the arguments are ultimately beside the point if an

Unbeliever doesn't see the cogency of dr. Craig's brand of New Testament criticism the same thing exactly as his

Apologetics it can only be because the doubter has some guilty secret to hide and doesn't want to repent and let

Jesus run His life if one sincerely seeks God that dr. Craig's arguments will mysteriously start looking pretty good to him

Dr. Craig's frank expression to his fellow evangelists and apologists is quite revealing

He tells you to say to the unbeliever that you find these arguments really convincing

But how can dr. Craig simply take this for granted unless as I'm sure he does

He knows he is writing to people for whom the cogency of the arguments is a foregone conclusion

Their arguments in behalf of a position his readers are already committed to as an a priori party line

His is a position that exalts voluntaristic decision above rational deliberation

Rational deliberation though good is by itself not good enough for the evangelist because it can never justify a quick decision such as campus crusades booklet the four spiritual laws solicits

Every one of dr. Craig's scholarly articles on the resurrection Implicitly ends with that little decision card for the reader to sign to invite

Jesus into his heart as his personal Savior He's not trying to do disinterested historical or exegetical research.

He's trying to get I don't know

He doubts it I Don't know what happened to it folks.

There we go. I know the feeling I used to be the president of my inner varsity chapter note how he characterizes people who do not accept his version of the historical

Jesus as Unbelievers who merely cast up smokescreens of insincere

Carping but this functions as a mirror image of his own enterprise His apparently self -effacing pose if my arguments fail to convince then

I must have done a poor job of explaining Them just reveals the whole exercise to be a sham

The arguments are offered cynically whatever it takes if they don't work take your pick between Brimstone God holds you accountable and treacle

God still loves you. I'm not saying dr Craig is wittingly distorting the truth to win his point

Obviously, he's not but he is so committed to a dogmatic party line that he cannot see truth as meaning anything

But that party line just as Kelly a moment ago said that truth ought to mean a person not an abstract concept in Dr.

Craig's lexicon you look up truth and it says see gospel to borrow

Francis Schaeffer's terminology again for the apologist truth becomes merely a

Connotation word just as liberal theologian Albrecht Ritchel said that Jesus has the value of God for us

The apologist might say Christianity has the value of truth for us Just as William James said that righteous endeavor was the moral equivalent of war for apologists

Christianity is the moral equivalent of truth only it doesn't work for Ritchelianism Jesus was in fact not

God for William James moral endeavor was not in fact war Even so anything that substitutes for the truth may be preferred to the truth, but then it's a fiction if the charge that unbelievers are hiding behind a smoke screen is a mirror image of the apologist's own strategy than the

Naturalistic presuppositions business is a specific instance of such childish.

I know you are but what am I tactics? Does it take a blanket presupposition for a historian to discount some miracle stories?

like Elisha's axe head on the one extreme or or the resurrection of Jesus on the other as Legendary no because as Bultmann recognized there is no problem accepting reports even of Extraordinary things that we can verify is still occurring today like faith healings and exorcisms

However, you may wish to account for them. You can go to certain meetings and see scenes resembling

Gospels So it is by no means a matter of rejecting all miracle stories on principle

Biblical critics are not like Carl Sagan or James Randi going into every investigation

Already convinced that the paranormal must be a fraud Now they take miracle stories on a case -by -case basis but such a selective piece meal and Probabilistic acceptance of miracle stories is not what apologists want

They take umbrage that biblical critics do not wind up accepting any and all biblical miracles

So if it would not require a blanket principle to reject the historicity of particular

Miracle stories we must ask if it would take a blanket principle to require acceptance of all biblical miracles

Clearly it would and that principle cannot be mere Supernaturalism that is openness to the possibility that miracles can occur

One can believe God capable of anything without believing that he actually did everything

Anybody may say did One can believe in the possibility of miracles without believing that every reported miracle must have occurred

No, the requisite principle for accepting all biblical miracles is the principle of biblical inerrancy

The belief that all biblical narratives are historically accurate simply because they appear in the

Bible After all, it will not greatly upset. Dr. Craig any more than it Upset Warfield to deny the historical accuracy of medieval reports of miracles wrought by the

Virgin Mary or the Sacramental wafer much less stories of miracles wrought by Gautama Buddha or Apollonius of Tiana Supernaturalism is not at all the issue here

The issue is whether the historian is to abdicate his role as a sifter of evidence by accepting the dogma of inerrancy even if clandestinely

I know. Dr. Craig says he is sticking only to the elements of the gospel story accepted as historical by most scholars

But this is only tactical. He's shortening the apologetic a line of defense

Once he's has you in the fold. He'll press on to full inerrant ISM Nor is naturalism the issue when the historian employs the principle of analogy as FH Bradley showed in the presuppositions of critical history

No historical inference is possible unless the historian assumes a basic analogy of past experience with present experience

If we do not grant this Nothing will seem amiss in believing stories that A turned into a werewolf or B changed lead into gold

Hey, just because we don't see it happening today doesn't prove it never did One could just as easily accept the historicity of Jack and the

Beanstalk on the same basis as long as one's sole criterion for historical plausibility is anything goes

If there are ancient parallel legends about other saviors and sages

Rising from death or ascending into heaven But there is no present -day instance is the historian to be maligned as a narrow Dogmatist or a moral coward refusing to repent if he judges the story of Jesus Resurrection is probably a legend to The historical axiom of analogy does not dogmatize critical historians are not engaging in metaphysics and epistemology

As if they could hop into a time machine and pontificate a didn't happen be did again

Dr.. Craig and his brethren are just pretty it is they and not critical historians who want to be able to point to sure results

Imagine a creed if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God has

Probably raised him from the dead thou shalt most likely be saved

Now who's the joke on their historians don't have creeds they frame hypotheses

Sure, you can find some hidebound Prof some small -minded Insecure windbag who will not budge from a pet theory because he has too much personally invested in it

But you have no trouble recognizing such a person is a hack a fake a bad

Historian who ought to know better holocaust deniers for example the last thing you do is to emulate

Such behavior and make it into an operating principle, but apologists do again

It's projection it reduces to this at the end of the four spiritual laws booklet

There's a cartoon diagram showing a toy locomotive engine labeled fact

Pulling a coal car labeled faith Followed in turn by a superfluous caboose tagged feeling the new convert is admonished to let faith rest on Fact not to allow faith to waver with feelings

But one must suspect that it is the caboose that is pulling the train and pulling it backward

Faith is based firmly on feeling and certain notions are postulated as fact and defended as such

Because of the security they afford the sick soul who seeks a port in the existential storm

Dr.. Craig has had occasion to cross swords with John Dominic Crossan one need not agree with Crossan I seldom do to appreciate that he is however an innovative and creative New Testament scholar that he marshals his vast

Learning in an attempt to find out new things from the Gospels Crossan is concerned to advance the state of knowledge

Contrast him with dr. Craig who uses his own formidable erudition in one vast damage control operation

Every effort of dr. Craig's is to squelch new theories that threatened to cast doubt on the traditional picture of the storybook

Jesus One feels that dr. Craig would sooner put his efforts elsewhere than putting out fires lit by Boltman Strauss and Crossan if he had his way he'd be occupied with something more edifying at least that's a feeling

I get Evangelicals think they've got the truth in their back pocket, so they can't be trying to find what they think they've already got

Novelty is the devil they expend great time and efforts mastering the skills of Greek and Hebrew exegesis witness the

Unparalleled excellence of Dallas Theological Seminary in these areas But for what all their efforts at exegesis are the laborings of a mountain to bring forth a mouse

If one of them really comes up with something new theologically it'll result in immediate charges of heresy

The effort is solely to hold the fort against the advance of intellectual history

Dr.. Craig everywhere presupposes a pre -critical picture of the Gospels a straightforward records of reporting without Tendential bias he tries to make the mark an empty tomb tale a piece of sober contemporary history

We're told that the story is unvarnished history since it betrays no signs of theological tendency

No theological coloring in a story told to attest the resurrection of a son of God from the dead

What else is it isn't it all varnish for Micah instead of wood?

Charles Talbert by the way no God -hating atheist But a southern Baptist in his book

What is a gospel has no trouble adducing abundant parallels from Hellenistic hero?

biographies in which the ascensions into heaven of Romulus Aeneas Hercules Aristides and pedigrees

Apollonius Etc are inferred from the utter failure of their searching disciples

To find any vestige of their bones bodies or clothing where they might be expected to be found

Sometimes they make a post -mortem appearance to their grieving and worshipful father

Worshipful followers these stories like all ancient miracle tales include the element of initial

Skepticism by the disciples who were then convinced despite themselves. It's just a narrative device

None of them are factual reports Talbert concludes that the empty tomb and resurrection stories in the

Gospels would have been familiar genres to ancient readers as of course they were pagan critics hastened to point out the similarities and Christian apologists lamely countered that Satan had

Counterfeited the gospel episodes in advance to throw unbelievers off the track

Excuse me contra. Dr.. Craig the empty tomb story is theological through and through If we're truly interested in history

How can we dismiss other ancient vanished body and post -mortem appearance stories?

making an exception in the single case of Jesus who just happens to be the founder of our religion and Once we recognize the gospel resurrection narratives to be cut from the same cloth all questions of whether the women went to the wrong tomb or if the disciples stole the body or rented it or Whatever whether the

Sanhedrin could have produced it with dental records to prove who it was or whether the disciples saw

Hallucination or a case of mistaken identity. It's all seemed to be moot okay, so there was

Price's opening statement and That was Okay Want to play another one for you?

And I know someone's called gonna be calling in to hold to hold that off a second We'll try to get something toward the end But I want to get these in today and sometimes when we get calls in and I'm trying to do something else it ends up Being very disjointed which doesn't help anybody else out a lot at the end of this debate

They decide to let everybody's pose a bunch of questions to each speaker as I'm gonna play all the questions that are posed to Bob Price I Just want you to listen to how he responds

So Let's see. Where did where did we leave off there? Okay could could you all state your questions as briefly as you can and If someone if it's your question has been already been asked maybe step out of line

My question is kind of a carries over from the previous I actually was gonna ask you about the extra biblical sources in terms of Seeking a belief in a historical

Christ and I was going to ask you about Josephus as well as Cornelius Tacitus who makes a clear reference to the execution of Christ in his work

What how do you feel about the historicity of Christ as a person and a historicity of his death and life not just of what?

We've talked about tonight in the Bible, but the extra biblical sources great. And then the next question Dr. Price, dr.

Craig made several corrections to the statements that you made first one being that we do have the 280 document of 1st

Corinthians chapter 15 second being that one of the Church Fathers Ignatius did mention verses 8 and 9 of the 1st

Corinthians 15 and third being that you used one of the passages from mythology as a proof

It's presupposing that it was predating The gospel accounts yet, dr

Craig showed that that passage was written in response to Christian documents and he had several occasions where he could have respond to those and he didn't and if we do find out tonight that Those are mistakes in your research

What reasons do we have to believe that anything else that you've said tonight in all due respect carries any value or significance?

Thanks. Thanks Nick My question has to do with What dr.

Craig spoke on in his opening argument? It's directed towards dr. Price so he gave four reasons why he believed that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was

Reasonable the animal the animal burial empty tomb Post -mortem appearances and the changes in disciples faith.

Do you believe? That any any of these are true if you do why if you don't why?

Dr. Price if I if indeed faith is less than Legitimate or valid because it is based

Perhaps on subjective feelings as you said at the beginning and if indeed those feelings are

Less than valid and legitimate in themselves What is it that you you base your?

mentions of sin Dishonesty and your your zealous drive

To seek the truth Thank you Yeah, it seemed that the argument or the question at the beginning of the evening was did

Jesus Christ rise from the dead dr Craig clearly tried to present a case. Yes, Jesus rose from the dead.

He gave at least four lines of evidence I didn't hear the reputation of them It seems that you would argue no

Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, but what I heard was maybe

I don't think so, but probably not and my question is

What convinces you if in fact you're convinced he did not rise from the dead? what's the line of evidence that you gave that would convince us that Jesus did not rise from the dead and What is the refutation for the four main lines of evidence that he presented clearly and yet 45 minutes to respond to And didn't make your case

Thank you My question concerns your parallel between Apollonius and the story of doubting

Thomas And you say there are a number of parallels, but aren't there a number of really stark differences for instance

Thomas did not Suspect to see Jesus whereas Apollonius disciples seem to expect that and the

Apollonius disciples saw a vision Whereas Thomas was in the presence of disciples who saw a physical body appear to him the physical body of Jesus When you were speaking of the fact that the women that were witnesses to the empty open tomb and the fact that they would have been accepted in that culture even if the culture that they had come from was a pagan society and Had been more open to women's opinions the opinions that the woman had given were

Second guests by all of the men in these situations not only with the tomb in Luke Chapter 4 but also in John chapter 23 when the woman at the well

Jesus foretells all of her life to her and then she goes and tells her city or town

As Jesus asked her to and the men have to come back and double check and make sure that what she's saying is true

These women were not Accepted as true witnesses despite the fact that this culture

I mean even if it was a pagan society They still double -check the women and also in reading the books

X of Jesus I was just wondering since you stated that you doubt the historicity of any literary document did you vote for all black or You know, did you overstep the bounds of colors and in the choices of anything being historically accurate

Since you did not pose Josephus or errant anybody else and also historically acceptable

Dr. Price during your eight -minute counter rebuttal you made a statement referring to Philippians chapter 2 verses 6 through 11

Where Jesus of Nazareth is referred to exalted as as being exalted Something that crossed my mind that I'd be interested to hear your take on was was how could a shamefully crucified leader of a very small minority

Possibly be referred to exalt to it possibly be referred to as exalted if he were still dead unless he had resurrected

I was just curious. Dr. Price with your disinclination to believe in the resurrection upon What authority you lead your home group?

That's all sorry on what authority upon what authority do you lead your home group when you have a disinclination to believe in the resurrection?

On what authority do I lead to that home group when there's a disinclination? Yes, you have you have a church or a group in your home you mentioned

Thank you Last question Mr. Price in all of your arguments that I've heard this evening.

You've pretty much discounted a lot of New Testament Authority People being a

New Testament Authority yourself and you're asking us to believe that we have to accept and consider all possibilities

What if you're wrong and he's right? What then?

Think I can actually cram these in One thing a few of them if I am wrong

What I think somebody asked Clarence Darrow this he was much interested in religion But an agnostic and I said what if you you know

The old Christian thing is right and then do you find you get to the pearly gates and find out he's he said well

I'd say gentlemen. I was mistaken Yeah, and and you have to ask then what is God going to be a peevish theology professors?

That's that's too bad You bastard you're gonna pry if that is the reaction of God. I don't think that's a

God worthy of worship So I'm not too worried I think if I seek the truth as well as I can

And with as clean a conscience as I can I'm not going to worry I mean, I'm going to hell in somebody's dogma anyway, right the

Muslims the Jehovah's Witnesses I might as well call him as I see him my authority in preaching is is not an authority

I take the approach. I understand Socrates to have taken the the the midwife approach

I pose questions and perspectives and I seek to get people to think about them and I speak for about 20 minutes and then

Have a couple of hours of discussion with my tiny little group where we're all viewpoints are heard

So I do not have I do not seek or claim an authority to tell somebody a truth that they must accept because I say it

I Did vote all -black on historical issues in the Gospels of the Jesus seminar as to how a slain

Jewish leader could be thought to be Exalted up to the right hand of God without a resurrection

Well in second Maccabees were told that Judah Maccabee had a vision of Onias the third the priest

Slain by the agents of Antiochus Epiphanes and that for his righteousness He had been exalted to serve as a mediator before the throne of God in heaven along with Jeremiah for his people

They didn't believe Onias had been resurrected and it seems to me many early Christians may have believed the same thing about Jesus before they

Adopted the belief that he had already been Resurrected just as many of Rabbi Schneerson's followers today think he will be resurrected and some are beginning to think that perhaps he has women as witnesses

My point was not that yes, they were recognized as witnesses after all though I have heard some researchers say that there may be some basis to say that I'm not competent to judge

My point is simply that the empty tomb stories come from a different quarter They don't they're not offered as evidence for the resurrection their deposits rather of a kind of women's

Lamentation literature such as is mentioned by Ezekiel the women who mourned for the dying and rising

God in Jerusalem So they're not they're not offered as proof of anything

The the Doubting Thomas thing in Apollonius of Tyana It strikes me that if you understand what an ideal type is in any field of study

It's a kind of a broad dictionary definition that gathers the similarities than what that one usually finds in particular

Examples you find a textbook picture of a human being as opposed to an ape

You're not going to find any human that looks exactly like that But if you see two or three people together with a head two legs two arms

One of them has red hair one of them has black hair is a good human beings. They're not gonna like You have to I mean that the whole thing assumes that there were differences the point is it seems to me the

Similarities are quite striking if this disciple had a vision in a waking dream of Apollonius It seems to me just a variation on the the the acceptable range of variants

For one where they think they're seeing a vision of Jesus, but he's really there There's another

Apollonius story where they think he's raised from the dead because he appears in a locked room, but he isn't he's just Teleported like Philip does from from Ethiopia to a

Zotus or whatever it is in the book of Acts So it seems to me that that one seizes on the irrelevant differences to avoid the force of the similarities

Speaking of Apollonius. I do not recall of this business that That philostratus was commissioned to write a counter blast to the

Gospels I don't think even Eusebius says that in his rejoinder to the life of Apollonius by philostratus

What I do remember is that the Empress asked him to commissioned him to write the thing to rehabilitate his reputation

Because Apollonius was widely considered to be a wizard and a sorcerer just as Jesus was among pagans who didn't believe in him

And so he wrote this life of a philosopher to you know as an apologetic but I don't know that there's any reason to think it was a counter blast to Christianity and Let's see the date of 1st

Corinthians 15 8 and 9 I'm not trying to say that this was interpolated in the 5th century or something

I'm trying to say that it's after the time of Paul You got several decades before anybody quotes it or any manuscripts are found

It doesn't require a huge amount of time for that. So, you know, I don't have a problem with that the the extra biblical references and so on I tend to Agree with with dr.

Craig that given what well that there you do have to take seriously the New Testament evidence I just find it to be wanting historically when

I do But I do not think that it's some shocking thing to find little to nothing in ex -biblical

Sources because if the Gospels are true in every respect historically What would your pagan newspaper editor so to speak of known it would have said oh, there's another faith healer an exorcist

Oh, they're a dime. It doesn't you wouldn't expect to find much about Jesus. So that has never struck me as a powerful argument

Tacitus does refer to the the crucifix the execution of Christus under the prefect of Pontius Pilate That I don't think is really important evidence because it simply reflects what everyone new

Christians believe It's interesting. He calls him Jesus not Jesus, but but Christus it implies he simply heard

Christian preaching So I and same thing with with the plenty the younger letter to Trajan Yeah, we knew

Christians believe in Christ That's no big deal the Josephus thing has been rewritten to some degree but no one knows how much because there are different versions of it in Arabic Slavonic and Greek and Apparently some of it has been added since origin read a copy of it in the second century that we don't have but I think it

Is likely Josephus did refer to Jesus and that would be That would be evidence on the the scale of a historical

Jesus. I'm not trying to say it's all or nothing It just seems to me on balance that the the predominantly legendary cast of the

Jesus material Outweighs the other but it's not absolutely clear. I of course admit

I could be wrong In fact, I'm not making a dogmatic assertion on any question My point is that I'm trying to approach it in terms of historical methodology

I'm not trying to make dogmatic theological statements and therefore the what

I base my urge To to intellectual honesty on so forth.

It's simply a matter of consistency. I don't know that one can prove there's an absolute Categorical imperative written in stone that one ought to to a value love truth, etc

It just seems to me those are good things to value and as long as we can agree on that the truth is good

I feel comfortable urging everyone to intellectual honesty I couldn't prove to some Nazi that it's not a good idea to tell the truth and to love people

But I think we all agree on that Let's see. What about these these points that I've allegedly neglected.

I've tried to say again and again There there is no fact Implied there's no fact

Necessitated by the story that a man named Joseph saw to the burial of Jesus I mean it's stated in a narrative source

Which seems everywhere else to be filled with marbles and so forth or historical difficulties there are an anachronisms

There are various problems with it It just seems to me that sure a man named Joseph of Arimathea could have buried

Jesus But you know There's no particular reason to think so because of the quality of the source the same thing with the empty tomb thing

If these if it's to be seen as one more apotheosis story where the the clue is no one can find the body

You just don't have to raise the questions. Yeah, what did they do with the body? It's a myth, but but let's assume that since nobody seems to want to hear that let's assume there really was a burial of Jesus and that they

That they did not produce the body to expose the hopes well look

What is the book of Acts say they waited seven weeks after the death of Jesus to proclaim the resurrection?

Hi, buddy. Hi a rotting pile of flesh by dental records. Hey, it's Jesus take a whip

That's impossible. It's ridiculous And this for the rabbi saying oh he stole the body well in a third century source a rabbi says you say he rose

From there, okay, he rose from the dead Satan raised him You see the style of argumentation is to say

I'll go you one better the a tomb was empty great But that's just because they stole the body.

It doesn't presuppose that they knew what had happened or didn't happen It's just tit -for -tat polemics

So I don't think you have to take the empty tomb thing too seriously The the appearances people have visions of Jesus all the time as I admit

It just seems to me that these things are deposits of redactional and legendary material

So that I do not see the gospel texts as good evidence for it for appearances that someone had maybe they did see the risen

Jesus maybe Oral Roberts on I don't have any it's just that it doesn't have much of a ridiculed value and Finally what could have transformed them again?

We do not know that in Josephus tells us about the martyrdom of James doesn't ever mention the resurrection of Jesus He says why do you ask me concerning the

Son of Man and they split his skull open? Unfortunately doesn't to say why do you ask me concerning the death and resurrection on the third day?

We don't know that that was on the agenda and many scholars think that there was early non resurrection even non

Messianic belief in Jesus now, let's assume that there were disciples who followed

Jesus and were grossly Disappointed and taken aback and disillusioned when he died

Can we explain the ongoing of the movement? Of course we can look at the seventh -day Adventist the

Jehovah's Witnesses the movement of sabotage to be and countless other Movements that have had gross disappointments in the case of the sabbation movement in the 17th century the

Messiah Apostatized he was put on the spot. You will be executed or adopt

Islam. What was his reaction? Oh But I mean if you think the crucifixion of the

Messiah is bad How about the apostasy of the Messiah did the movement collapse? No, they suddenly said oh, well, he didn't really apostatize

It was just a phantom or he did but it was an atoning apostasy so that he could Plumb the depths of sin for us so that we wouldn't have to and it was prophesied to do we forget to tell you that?

And so on and so forth. It's it's the same kind of desperate cognitive dissonance reduction strategy

It many people will fall away like the two guys going back to Emmaus. That's psychologically plausible

Well, we hope he was Messiah, but but many others will say hey, no way I'm not gonna face that ridicule come hell or high water.

He was the Messiah I went to Berkeley once and saw in about 1979 a table set up on the campus for guru

Maharajah And I said, hey, wait a second Didn't this kids mom take him off the throne of the universe for marrying his secretary?

Don't they know that and my friend said well, they just think it's a media hoax the

Rastafarians They believe Haile Selassie still alive. We know he isn't but they say it's a media hoax

There were people that wanted Jim and Tammy Baker back. There were people that didn't want Clinton impeached I mean with whatever you say, whatever you prove some people are not gonna budge

And so it seems to me it's it's it's naive to even seek some big Mysterious explanation and one last thing to invoke a miracle as an explanation

That's trying to explain X by double X, you know, we don't understand what happened here

So let's say a miracle did it? Yeah, that's like saying we don't know who built the pyramids. So it must have been

UFOs Oh, well, thanks. We got that one settled, you know Well, there you go

And everybody's sitting there. Why aren't you interacting with him? I'm gonna be in May. Okay The point was to demonstrate that here was this long line of questions way too many questions, but he pretty much kept track of all of them and responded to each one and What you're listening to is is the ultimate example of skepticism.

There is not an argument that Robert Price has not encountered that he cannot be skeptical about That he cannot say well, we don't know we don't know we don't know now when you listen

Actually, if you listen carefully to his lectures and things he's always saying we know he uses terms like absurdity and and we an absolute certainty terms in knowing that we can't believe what

Christianity says, but we just don't know and So, how do you respond to that?

That's that's my task over the next a little over a month to respond to That kind of a presentation and hopefully to do so in such a way that is edifying to the

Saints and and so on and so forth, so I covered your prayers in that preparation, but Just to let you know the kind of presentation that we're going to be encountering

When we when we debate Robert Price and I think in some ways That's gonna be a little bit more representative of the kind of stuff that you hear on University campuses and things like that then you're your standard

Bart Ehrman presentation that frequently It's a mixture because people don't realize there's differences and things like that but that's why

I wanted to Present that information to you and so you can listen. He's called the

Bible geek He certainly does have an encyclopedic Knowledge of ancient world history and issues that Sabotage see who and who in the world is that?

Well, I've had to find out Because it's kind of stuff that he presents and so it's going to be quite the challenge and if you're in the,

Florida area You might want to to be there to attend. All right, let's we don't have a whole lot of time left in program day

We can go a little bit long. We lost him. Okay We had a caller from Saudi Arabia.

I believe it was Bassam Zawadi had called in taking exception to my Very brief article yesterday where I Well, it's called theology matters again

What happens when a monotheistic religion that? Rejects revelation of God in Christ and to lacks the heart -changing power of the gospel gains power over culture

History gives us many examples today You can read about the atrocities of such combinations of false religion and political power in a daily basis

Especially coming from the Islamic world here are two recent ones that illustrate the point. I've just been seeing so many stories

In fact, I'm starting to wonder if it isn't unwise of me To have so many feeds where I see this every single day

We some of you saw the the Christians being beaten to death in the streets in India Now, I don't know if those were

Hindus or Muslims that were doing that I I don't know but some of you saw that video one of the first the first video

I ever saw online Was Muslims in Indonesia Beating a man to death and then slicing his throat.

That was the first video. I ever saw online many many years ago a Christian martyr dying in that way and my point in raising the issue was not that there are not and I've Made this point before there are

Quote unquote moderate Muslims who would argue against this. In fact in the famous text that Is always raised by Arrogant canner, but he never gives a specific references in Sahih al -Bukhari 957 some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them

The news this event reached Ibn Abbas who said if I had been in his place I would not have burnt them as Allah's Apostle forbade it saying do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment which was fire.

I Would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle whoever changed his Islamic religion then kill him

Now it's interesting there's no discussion provided here as to whether these were atheists who had once been

Muslims and The problem here and and I I again wish my moderate Muslim friends all the best here but the argument that is made by al -qaeda and others the

Taliban, etc is that no one is Not a kaffir and is not an apostate because we're all born as Muslims We all took the oath when

Allah rubs Adam's back and all of mankind stands on the Great Plain We all took that oath and therefore if we believe anything other than Islam, then we are apostates that's their argument now

I I Get argue against it. Please go ahead do so But the problem is the guy sitting over next to the window believes what he's heard the window of the plane, you know with the underpants on and That's the problem and They're the underpants to go boom.

That is not I'm hoping that everyone's wearing underpants, but they had to fancy go boom We're the real problem You know, that's that's where the issue arises and I just simply point out one thing

Where you have allegedly Christian cultures and I don't know where there are any today to be perfectly honest with you but I Could never debate this subject

Where Basam Zawadi is that is in Saudi Arabia because I we couldn't debate in Mecca I'm not allowed to go there and We all know that if I were to say the things that I would need to say as a

Christian Defending what Christians believe in light of for example, surah 112 ayah 3

Where God begeth not nor is he begotten if I were to have to give the Christian response to that In those lands,

I would be subject to all sorts of legal penalties. I certainly would be in grave danger in Pakistan today

Where these types of atrocities are taking place. That's my point that theology matters because Christianity changes the hearts of me and Islam does not have the power to change the heart of man.

That is the difference. Thanks for listening today We'll be back Lord willing on Thursday here on the dividing line.

We'll talk to you then God bless You The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at six. Oh two nine, seven three four six zero two or write us at p .o

Box three seven one zero six Phoenix, Arizona eight five zero six nine. You can also find us on the world wide web at a omen

Org, that's a o -m -i -n dot o -r -g where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks