The CONTENT of the Evidence for the Resurrection! - Gary Habermas

Ajouté : 2026-05-24

[00:00:00]All right. Hello and welcome back to Real Seekers, everybody. I'm your host, Dale the Real Seeker, and today we have an extraordinarily special treat for you guys. It's uh um a threepart event.

[00:00:12]Actually, we uh Gary and I have planned to do this in three parts where we're going to be covering his Magnum Opus on the resurrection, but this time it's not just a celebration party or or kind of responding to criticisms. We're actually going to be going over each of his volumes and looking at at the subset of content. What what is the content of each of these volumes? And today we're going to be focusing specifically on volume one. So, believe it or not, I because I think a lot of online skeptics, they they don't even bother reading your book, but they they have objections. And number one objection that I see, it's the title. Um, so they they say, "Well, the title is evidences."

[00:00:55]Hey, that has an S on the end. That's bad grammar. That's bad spelling. You know, the the plural of evidence is is evidence without the s kind of thing.

[00:01:05]So, because of that, they dismiss your book. They don't bother reading it. So, >> that's a real good reason, isn't it?

[00:01:10]>> Oh, yeah.

[00:01:12]>> You you spell this thing funny.

[00:01:14]>> Yeah. Therefore, your content's all goofy.

[00:01:18]>> Yeah. I I just wanted to give you a chance to kind of, you know, what do what do you say to this this people?

[00:01:24]Have you got a spelling error on on your title in terms of evidences?

[00:01:28]>> Well, first of all, they should talk to the guy who made the title, not me.

[00:01:33]Second, I had an experience years ago at Michigan State University and I had one of the members from the history department on my committee. The guy was not a Christian. In those days, they had larger committees than they have today that like typically two for a master's degree and three for a PhD or that kind of stuff. And I had I had five people on my committee and three of them did not believe in the resurrection.

[00:02:05]And they allowed me to do the resurrection. And they had I had two directors depending on which which one represented what at the university.

[00:02:18]One was a Greek Orthodox priest with two doctor's degrees for one thing and um the other thing was sort of a boat a guy was a boat mania. Now this is the early '7s so boat mom was still in charge and that guy said to me he said hey um we're liberal around here but we're good liberal. And he said before you can ask me you probably wonder what does good liberal mean? And he said here's what it means. We don't care what you say. If it's a rational argument, it makes sense. The argument stands and you'll be judged on whether your argument hangs together and it's truly evidential, not on our position. And if you can make your view work like that, we're going to give you a PhD. That's just the way it works here. You don't have to agree with us. Now, he was strictly the director of the thing and he was Bulmanian and his background. And I I thought I thought that was a very good introduction, but I had to go visit cuz one of my one of my professors was a a Jewish professor of history. He did not believe in the resurrection. However, a he was the kindest guy on the committee. He was the most helpful, the most open, and had no problems with my book. In fact, Dale, I'll tell you what he said the day of my oral exam. I didn't know if I was going to make it or not. They invited me back in the room after they talked and and and I thought it was taking a little too long, like 20 minutes, and they said, "Welcome back, Dr. Habermass." I thought, "Oh, praise the Lord." I just thought, "That's great." you know, but as he was walking out the door, he gave me my dissertation back and he said his copy and he said he said, "Uh, I I'm okay with everything you wrote." He said, "I think people are always seeing visions." I thought that was a he never talked like that normally, but he was an historian and he said, "I think all kinds of people see visions." That's where I left it. But then he said this to me, Dale, uh, you talk about a big kick. He'll he said, "You know, I enjoyed it, but I think you left out the best evidence for the resurrection." I stopped and I said, "Excuse me?" And he goes, "Yeah, you didn't say anything about the Shroud of Turan >> and this was 2 years before the 1978 investigation in Italy." That's what I mean by open and friendly, you know, and I think I can be that with him. I've given A's on graduate papers for people who critique my view. I gave a guy an A for critiquing my view of the resurrection and saying it didn't work.

[00:04:59]>> So I I think there should be a lot of latitude like that. And so I went to anyway I went to see the dean and he said oh well this word on your thesis is misspelled and I on the title and I said I don't think so. And he said yeah yeah and he he made it real real small. He said yeah you want to correct that before you hand anything. I said I think to myself correct it. I'm embarrassed.

[00:05:23]But I went home cuz I was pretty sure I was right. I looked it up one of these big standard dictionaries and either spelling is fine.

[00:05:32]>> And and I got a feeling that's what you're going to find on on evidences, but I have not looked it up so I don't have another response. I will say this for the guys who want to pick things and you already said it. They don't talk so much about the evidences, they talk about little things they can get their thumbnail in. Um, if I were them and they were atheists, if that's the case for them, I can't judge them, but if they are atheists, I would say, you know, you guys, instead of work worried about how to spell evidences, why don't you guys think about some empirical evidence that proves your view to be true? I think you're a little short on that end. And I would just I would leave it there rather than the best you can come up with a spelling. Then you must like the book, even though it's not true, I would say. So, you like the book, huh?

[00:06:16]>> Yeah. Yeah. I think that's a that's a great response. Yeah.

[00:06:19]you know, it's about the substance of the content of the book and these guys are focusing on trivialities about the spelling of a of a thing. I think in your case, um, with the dean there, it was over inquiry. Do you spell it with an E or with an I? And >> it was that word. Yes, it was.

[00:06:35]>> And I spelled it with an E and he said I should change it to an I. And I did. And that's probably the normal spelling. But this big dictionary that you don't you never carry around with you. It was pretty big. that says either spelling is appropriate.

[00:06:49]>> Yeah. And it's the same with evidences is actually correct. Right. This shows, you know, some of these skeptics, they're not academics, but in academia, in certain fields such as theology and history. I even looked it up. evidences is a proper is sometimes used to represent multiple kinds or examples of evidence particularly in the fields of archaeology, theology and historical documentation. So, >> right.

[00:07:18]>> Yeah, I I think you've kind of been vindicated there and then the skeptics.

[00:07:22]>> Yeah. And I mean, what's the argument called? Minimal facts. Plural. I don't say I have a book about minimal fact.

[00:07:31]had minimal facts and I even number them and no to my knowledge nobody's mumbled about the the the number the number of them.

[00:07:39]>> Absolutely. Absolutely.

[00:07:42]>> And I don't even get I don't even get bothered with that. That's so And if they want to get bent out of shape and upset about that, that kind of tells you where they're coming from and >> Yeah.

[00:07:51]>> Yeah. They're not they're not open to they're not open to the evidence, ironically. So, but yeah, let's >> looks like it.

[00:07:57]>> All right. Well, well, let's move on then for for those that are actually interested in the the evidence and what you know the content of your first volume.

[00:08:06]>> Um, I wanted to ask you that the first things you look at um in your in your volume one are the philosophy of history and you look at things like, you know, his the nature of historical knowledge and how it works and how that's kind of varied over time, right? from from things like positivism to the the newest post-modern views on history and that sort of thing. And my my question for you on that is I just want to understand to what extent do you think one's view of what historical knowledge is of what history is? Um how does that influence how they approach the topic of the resurrection's historicity?

[00:08:50]It's it's cool that I introduced this Jewish historian because I brought the first section of my dissertation into him and uh it had nothing really nothing to do with the resurrection. I was doing the kind of things you're talking about.

[00:09:07]Philosophy of history, historioggraphy, what is the definition of historical fact?

[00:09:13]And I was I had pages there on how different well-known historians define history and so on. He said he handed it back to me and he said, "My only problem with your initial section here is probably I don't know 50 60 pages." He said, "My only problem is nobody knows what history is." And that kind of floored me. He said, "Nobody knows what history is." So here's what I see you do. drop most of these pages. And I'm thinking, oh no, that took a long time. I'd like the book to be a little fatter because they I don't want them I don't want them to argue about how small my book's going to be. But it turned out to be 350 pages, so it's fine. But he said, "Drop those pages and simply say in as much as there are a lot of definitions, here's the definition I'm going to use." And when I was already had a background in doing this, I had done grad papers, well, PhD papers on these topics. And here's something that every definition had. Uh, basically the ones that are doing re historical research.

[00:10:19]History as an as an event and as an interpretation.

[00:10:24]It's something that happened or didn't happen and whatever it is, what is the normal or best or better interpretation of said events? He said just go with event and interpretation. Other people say other things, but they're kind of minor. I found a couple other views that had one had six points. But I went with those two in particular, an event and its interpretation. And you'll be s well maybe you wouldn't be surprised. Uh there are so many people out there including skeptics that are friendly.

[00:10:59]They will say no you can't say this cuz there's other positions. And I'll go other positions or other interpretations.

[00:11:11]Don't you mean interpretations?

[00:11:14]Because I mean in theology uh you know the biggie today would be um whether you're Armenian, Baptist or reformed and they can't even get they can't get along with each other sometimes. But those are interpretations. Oh no it's not because this verse says this according to you.

[00:11:33]Add those words according to you. You're entitled to that view but it is according to you. Well it's according to this guy who wrote this book. Fine say that. Put them in your footnote. But it's interpretations are very very important and hopefully they're going to be based on the data.

[00:11:48]>> Absolutely. Yeah. Well said. I I I just I love the philosophy of history myself.

[00:11:54]So I always love when you guys have like a you know that in the beginning of your resurrection books. I I always uh enjoy learning about that. And um on that front um you you kind of have a chapter sort of mentioning uh rules for the historical discipline and and that's where you kind of get into these things called the criteria of authenticity. So I just wanted to ask you a couple two two things. One what are the criteria of authenticity? Um how you know what are they? And two, um, you you must know that there are some skeptics, people who will say, I don't think the they're skeptical of the criteria themselves.

[00:12:35]>> Yes.

[00:12:36]>> What's your response to that?

[00:12:38]>> Yeah. I mean, my good friend whose name I've already taken uh I don't want to say in vain because I would just be kidding around. We're we're good friends. Uh Dale Allison, he's one of the he's one of the critics. But then Dale when you there's a list of things and and some of them are better than others. for example, almost everybody, even a skeptic, I think even many atheists, if they're an atheist philos uh uh historian or philosopher, but if they're an atheist historian, they're going to list some of these things in favor above others because for example, it's often said that multiple attestation is the best known of the criteria. Whereas in popular circles in churches for example, church people will often say it's enemy attestation or it's it's um >> it's embarrassment. It's those kind of things. And actually some of the guys that are even really pro uh the these rules, they'll say those are a little bit lesser ones. Uh the better ones would be the closeness to the event. Um how many different sources do you have?

[00:13:55]Because to use our popular comment, two heads are better than one. Two research books are better than one. In a dissertation, you better have dozens. So that's multiple attestation. That's still huge. Multiple sources is part of that. Uh we want to know if the guys who the multiple attestation, we want to know if they're from good people. If you go back in the ancient days from Herododus to the to say a hundred years after Jesus, so you get some background uh for who's doing the history here.

[00:14:28]Herodotus used the term uh hysterel uh over and over and over again. Now, I don't think that word is synonymous with writing history, but it's sure got a role in there. And that's the Greek word that we base the English word on and it's used there. But if you looked at him, you'd say, "Ah, who's Herodotus?"

[00:14:49]Oh, he's the guy we commonly call the father of history. Okay. Well, what do you think about Herodotus and Tacitus or Herododus and Libby or And you can go through a few of these guys. You could take a couple one or two of the Greeks after Herododus. And you know what's going to be clear? Herodotus may be the father of history and he's cited that way many many times and uses the key word in the Greek but he's not the best historian. He's kind of loose on the data. He doesn't back to the authentic uh criteria. You have to have something to tie your views down. And if you don't have multiple sources that's on you. You have to have I don't think very many directors of dissertations or master's thesis would take one source especially if that one source is taken to be prejudiced to a fair percentage of the people. Oh, he's a committed Christian. Oh, he's a committed atheist. You want people who survey the field and are fair with the data. So, I think some of them are very important. And here's a question Michael Lakona asks. I I think it's a a really good question. If you're against the criteria, I want to know if you tell me that without even reading your book, I want to know what your argument is based on.

[00:16:07]If it's not based on something, hey, go home and work on your argument a little bit more because you have to have some basis for it.

[00:16:13]>> Absolutely. I think I think that's a great point. I mean, the these tools are are amazing. They give us the the epistemic tools to sort of dig into our historical sources.

[00:16:23]>> Good word.

[00:16:24]>> And dig those facts. That's um and one thing I I'll just say on this before we move on. I always notice I don't know if you noticed this, but skeptics, they'll always attack that criterion of embarrassment and that sort of thing, but I I find that their attacks when you look at it, they're not actually attacking the criterion. They're attacking the way it was applied.

[00:16:43]They're they're saying, "Well, that's not actually embarrassing." Okay. Yeah, that we can have debates on what was embarrassing, but the criterion itself is still sound. Um, you know, >> but I'd rather have multiple sources.

[00:16:59]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:17:00]>> Because Dale, I could say, and I say this when I'm lecturing. I say, "Well, it's kind of embarrassing if the if the Christians if the disciples ran away when Jesus was captured." Oh, well, was that pre or postresurrection? It's pre. That's important, right? because it's the resurrection that changed, right? So, you can get in there and say that's this or that. It still counts, but I would rather have a multiplicity of early sources. And so, by comparison, we talk about the creeds, for example, that are often dated in the 30s. Uh the Jesus seminar, for crying out loud, reject 91% of the red letter words of Jesus. and they voted that the creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3 and following predated Paul's conversion. So why was Paul so angry? This this is criteria. Why was he so angry? Because that comment based on eyewitness testimony. Okay, excuse me.

[00:18:04]There's a good criterion. Um he was steaming because they were saying things that were against Orthodox Christianity.

[00:18:13]Well, or orthodox Judaism at that time and he was a Pharisee as was Josephus and there and and he's mad. Well, you know what? If I'm Paul, I might be mad too if that creed or its component parts predated his conversion. Now he's got something to be upset about.

[00:18:31]>> Yeah. And just just to clarify, so when you're talking about the criterion of multiple independent attestation and independent sources there, I I just want to make I just want you to make it clear for the audience because some some skeptics online um will say, well, if you if you just have one source, therefore, that proves it's not historical. But the criteria don't work that way as falsification criteria. They they're only used positively. Is that that's correct? Right.

[00:18:58]>> Yeah. And I'd rather have one than none.

[00:19:00]And back to the earlier one, I don't want to ding somebody here, but if you if you take certain atheist and other positions, you'd be lucky to have one.

[00:19:10]>> Yeah.

[00:19:10]>> So, don't criticize the Christian ones for only having five or eight and you can't come up with it and your only comeback is, "Yeah, but your view is supernatural and snnatural, anything's wacky." Go according to your view. And let me just remind you, your view doesn't have any evidence. So, you shouldn't be you're not the you know, you sound like the pot calling the kettle black.

[00:19:31]>> Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Awesome. All right. Well, kind of moving on to to part two. So, that that sort of covers your part one. You you do have um mention of miracles. I'm going to save that for our next episode on volume two.

[00:19:45]>> Yeah. Yeah. And let me make I was going to say something myself and and we didn't talk about this ahead of time. We always get along and we're thinking the same way. Um, strangely enough, volume 4 is not out yet, but real quickly at the beginning, I ask, what is a Christian worldview? What does a what would a resurrection say about a worldview? Was Jesus a miracle worker? And was he deity? Okay, I do those promeda before I even get into what because the last volume is called theology and practice or the end end of uh after that colon.

[00:20:19]And the interesting thing there is I define discuss draw some circumference around the word miracle. But you know what? I I don't think I'm wrong here. Somebody may prove me wrong and I'll say, "Okay, if I made a mistake, I made a mistake." Not I'm not talking about somebody else's view here. I'm talking about where I'm going on the research. And I never I don't think I don't call the resurrection a miracle until volume four.

[00:20:49]You may say, "Well, you got a whole chapter once." Listen, I'm only drawing a circle around it. I'm only telling you what a miracle would be if it happens, but I have not answered the crucial question. And it's in chap it's in volume four. And and basically, I I agree with David Hume. I've got well over 100 pages on David Hume. I mean, 130 something pages on Hume. But I like his definition. Not the part about violating the law of nature. I don't think hardly anybody believes that that it violates nature. I think it it it supersedes u nature but I like Hume's a miracle if it occurs is an event that happened due to the action of of a god or another invisible agent god or in other words um maybe if you believe in angels spirits demons uh you know but the point is a deity does miracles we don't do them as human beings And so all I give is a definition according to Hume and a great many skeptics because my second chapter on Hume is where people have taken him and pretty much everybody it's pretty sold out on the view that you just don't get miracles in a work a day natural world if that's what this is and you the case for miracles pretty tough but I think there's a case for that. Um so I say what it would be but I can't stop in volume four and start discussing what it would be. I do it up front and then I say it's fulfilled in chapter I mean book four. So I I want to make that point clear. I think it's very clear that that this if this is a a theistic worldview and God raised Jesus from the dead. You don't go around raising people from the dead with whom you disagree.

[00:22:33]You don't lay hands and bless heretics um whoever they are for you. So that's where I say I think it's a miracle. But not until then because I'm I'm sure Dale I haven't read them but I'm sure there's critiques out there saying see you already discuss the miracle that's your problem. You're talking about the super supernatural. Actually I'm not. I'm giving definitions.

[00:22:54]>> Yeah. Yeah. You So in our next episode when we deal with volume two you've got quite a bit on David Hume but as you said you don't fulfill that application to the resurrection until volume four.

[00:23:05]So yeah. Well >> correct >> well said on that front. So >> all right. So getting back to volume one then in in in your part two this is where you kind of deal with the background knowledge. You know there's certain preliminary issues such as number one does Jesus did even exist as a historical figure >> and if he did exist how how do we prove historically that he was a a messianic healer and stuff like that. So, yeah. H how do you prove he existed and that he was this messianic healing figure?

[00:23:38]>> Yeah. And and when I'm doing this, let let me cut both of the extremes off.

[00:23:44]I am not writing for theological fundamentalists who are going to scream at me because maybe I'm working on a Sunday or maybe I'm maybe I'm eating something that they disagree with. I I don't know. But people have some pretty petty and that kind of pettiness really bothers me. I'm a 60s guy and and live and let live whenever I can do that. So I don't I'm not I don't not listening to guys that that are so straight they can't forgive me can't think sometimes. But on the other end I don't appreciate people who write off see right away you're assuming Jesus lived. Really? Do you have any idea how much stuff I've done historical Jesus?

[00:24:28]My views are out there, including in in one. And just because you don't think Jesus lived and you don't have any data for it in my book, you don't have anything, don't criticize me. Go write your own thing and tell me why you don't like it.

[00:24:42]So yes, I do have a chapter in that progometer section on Jesus lived. And oh, by the way, I did that at Michigan State in a PhD class in a anc in an ancient Roman history course at the PhD level. And my professor who gave no hints about being religious in any way, this professor said, "Hey, let me add a couple things that might strengthen your case a little bit. I'm not there, but I want to tell you some extra sources you could go to." and she put some mar she wrote some comments that's in the days where we got our on paper and they could make comments and um uh she just gave me more data. I think I think a fair person gives you data even if they don't think it is if they just think you should look at it uh do it.

[00:25:35]But I did it for class and my whole grade in doing P I don't know what it was like when you went to grad school up there in Toronto, but um my papers my my whole class grade at the PhD level was writing a 40 or 50page paper for that class. You don't do it well, you don't do well in the course. It's not taking it's not doing this or that. And she really helped me through it. I was all in Roman history. So >> I learned a lot from that. I learned a lot from the discussions. For example, did Caesar write the Spanish wars?

[00:26:08]Is it like the Golic Wars? Okay. How do you do that? Well, you have to get in there and apply the same kind of rules that I applied in this volume. So, >> absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. And uh um I know you um shoot my uh I was going to ask a follow-up and I I my mind went blank there for a second. So, >> that's all right. Blanks are good.

[00:26:30]>> Okay. Okay. Um, so yeah, I think I think at this point um Oh, okay. I remembered it now. So I remember uh you did an interview with Sean McDow and on the question of Jesus' existence, I think he asked you a very uh insightful question.

[00:26:47]Why why don't you include uh Jesus's existence um or or even as a healer as a minimal fact? Because surely over 90% of scholars would accept that. And it is highly evidenced. Um, is there a reason you leave it out? Do you think it's just implied in the Jesus was crucified fact or Yeah.

[00:27:08]>> that he was a that Jesus being a healer was implied in the crucifixion?

[00:27:14]>> Well, that he existed would be implied by that.

[00:27:17]>> Oh, that he existed. Let me first give you a view on the other side. Marcus Borg, a very well-known skeptic before he passed away a number of years ago. um in one of his books he says I don't know what your view is on the supernatural but he said just be just understand as an historical likelihood that Jesus healed he said for you to say no you're rule you are ruling against all the available evidence and the evidence is very good and he gives he gives uh three reasons for believing Jesus healed and and um so so he's open to that. He's even open to what he doesn't talk very clearly about the resurrection appearances. He just says something happened and could have been this or that. He truly is. He's one of the co-founders of the Jesus seminar.

[00:28:14]And but he says whatever your view is just realize that when you go up against healing you're in territory where even the skeptics almost all the skeptics allowed that Jesus was a healer and that was the first time I had read that and when I started going through the books I thought wow that's conceited that's conceited that's conceited but it's the same issue I said earlier I wouldn't call it a minimal fact for more than one reason number one I don't think it's that highly I think what he's saying is correct.

[00:28:46]It's highly accepted, but not on the level that I'm taking uh for the minimum for the six facts. And by the way, this is around a lot. I've been in a lot of dialogues where this happens. I never put a percentage on how many scholars have to be there before I count them.

[00:29:03]One time in this forsome I I give a descriptive comment about where people are and it could be as high as this but I never say it's my view and I never say or in a footnote or anything I never say if it doesn't reach this level I don't accept it. Never say that but I'm not sure the the facts. Bourc says it's almost unanimous. I don't know if it's that high. Secondly though Dale we have this other problem. First of all is it that high? The second one is the minute you start saying something like that happened, someone's going to say, "Oh, so God's hands in this, right? And now I got to do philosophy." And I'm out of place because I'm discussing miracle and Jesus's existence in historical contexts, setting up an outline for what's a fact. And I don't want to stop and talk about where there's a God. And okay, so you like Hume's def, you like his definition, except for the word break the laws of nature. So you like him. Why don't you answer the rest of his questions? Not here. Yeah, but you're going to let it go to all all the way to volume four. I've got reasons for that. So I don't want to introduce a philosophical issue. So those are the reasons I don't put it in.

[00:30:11]>> Fair enough. Fair enough. Okay. Yeah, I was I was just interested when uh Sean asked you about that. So yeah, thanks for Oh, but he he's right. It's a large percentage. I don't know what percentage I put in it, but I would just say Borg.

[00:30:24]Borg says it's very high. And I I know of another critic who said wherever you are in this issue, it's virtually unanimous from us skeptics.

[00:30:36]>> Yeah.

[00:30:37]>> So I can take I can use their word when these guys either, you know, they're not very positive or they don't believe it or something, they still see that there's good data.

[00:30:47]>> All right. All right. So So now we come to the main event. Uh this is the >> the main kitten kaboodleoodle of volume one. your six minimal facts and I I want to turn them over uh so number one uh for those who might not know what what are these six minimal facts and how do you establish these b on the grounds of secular history in your book what what are some of the the strongest reasons for each one >> okay first of all and and and if there's one thing I get that people get goofed up even believers even my grad students here's one thing even if to read the whole thing. I think you didn't read it because I start out with 12 facts that are accepted by a large number of critics. And then I say basically I may not say this many words, but what I'm saying is I'd like to be a little tighter than these 12. So let's go to six that are even clearer, but I do not put a percentage of what has to be there and what doesn't. Um, so I have a list of 12. For example, here's a good point.

[00:31:54]The empty tomb is in the 12. It's not in the six, >> right?

[00:31:58]>> And the reason it's not in the six is not because it's not well evidenced.

[00:32:02]There may be none of my six facts that have more evidences in the empty tomb.

[00:32:06]But the second criterion is it largely admitted by and and that's a really far behind criterion. The first one is is is there adequate evidence?

[00:32:16]If it happens to be accepted even by unbelievers today or a good number of them, that's really that really helps. But I want to make this clear. I've said it a hundreds of times and sometimes nobody listens. I don't care if all of a sudden somebody said, "I'm not going to give it anymore.

[00:32:33]I'm taking my I'm taking my vote back."

[00:32:35]I don't believe that. I walked out on that one last year. Uh I don't accept that. The second one that it's granted by most scholars and I by scholars I call accredited with I say basically an earned doctorate degree. Now there's more than PhDs. There's other degrees out there especially European degrees infill uh defill there's there's other degrees out there but it has to be a terminal degree in a relevant field. and I can think of six or eight relevant fields that they know how to use the data and they'll there'll be some disagreement but that's my problem with empty tomb the numbers not high enough in the last volume I think it's volume four um I did a count of several hundred scholars with an even I think it was virtually even uh believers unbelievers But they have to be scholars. But I didn't I didn't Some people go, "Oh, you probably used all your seminary buddies.

[00:33:40]You probably all these Christians or since there's more and more Christians going back for doctor degrees and not enough of us going back for no I think there was a virtual even split between skeptics.

[00:33:52]Uh and you know conservative not conservative volume three or or volume.

[00:33:58]>> This is I thought it was volume two.

[00:34:00]It's not three.

[00:34:01]>> Okay.

[00:34:02]>> I don't think it's three. Well, three scholarly perspectives, but but >> it it might be I don't I it might be I won't quibble on that but but the number I did one of these and put it in earlier work a number of years ago and the figure was about 75%.

[00:34:21]And after that the figure seemed to fall a little bit. So in journal articles I said 70 to 75%. But I had said 75 in a publication. I think it was there. But when I just did this one, finished it, it was 80 >> 80%. Interesting enough, something like 80.2. And I'll bet you somebody thinks, "Oh, you kept finding just a little bit more to get it a touch over 80." No.

[00:34:45]Actually, when I put them all together and counted, 80 was just the number. I didn't go back and add five more guys to get my number up there. But 80 for me, eh? I'd like it to be higher than that.

[00:34:58]Oh yeah, that's cuz you that's cuz of your number 90. No, 90 was not my figure. I just don't think 80 I'll often tease with students. I'll go 80 I teach only PhD. 80 is an F on a P in a PhD course. And if you if if you want numbers, if you get an 85, you flunk.

[00:35:19]And and by flunk at our school, that means you take the course over and repay the tuition for it. It's very strict to get anything lower than a B minus. And so I know that's not a commensurate application, but 80 is just a little too low for me. So that's what I that's what I don't like. I wish the empty tomb and I have my views as to why that's the critics don't do it that much. So, I put it as one of the 12 cuz there's over 20 evidences in favor of the empty tomb by critical standards. I only use critical standards for my reasons. I never ever and I quiz my PhD students all the time.

[00:35:57]I will never use an argument like this.

[00:36:02]Well, my friend, the feeding of the 5000 is in all four gospels. That means we have four independent sources for the resurrection. I mean, for the feeding the 5,000. it may be four independent sources, but for the most part, if it's in Matthew, Mark, and Luke or any combination, um, it's Mark and that's one source. So, Matthew, Mark, and Luke is a one count, not a three count. And that's what I mean by doing things critically. So, and it got to 80, and I left it in the 12.

[00:36:33]Sometimes I call it six plus one because the EV evidence for the empty tomb has the data doesn't have as high an agreement that I would like.

[00:36:42]>> Yeah, fair enough. And I I intend to probe you when we come to volume three.

[00:36:47]I'm going to I'm going to probe in a little bit on that. But for for now, >> so you've in terms of volume one, I am kind of curious then what about the what are some of the six minimal facts that you do include then if if the empty tomb doesn't make the cut. Um what what are some of the main the six main minimal facts and >> y what what are some of the best reasons for for some of those?

[00:37:11]>> Yeah, and let's do that. Let me also tell you why it's a plus one.

[00:37:16]I I'll tell you that one real fast. It's a plus one cuz it's almost of the two main reasons it's got one. So it's got 50% so it's worth a plus something but it's got the one that is by far the stronger one. Multiple we've already talked about it multiple at the station.

[00:37:33]It's got the best reasons over 20 critical reasons for accepting the empty tomb. So I think that makes it great.

[00:37:40]And to complete my thought earlier if every if every skeptic got off my bandwagon and said I don't agree with that. I don't agree with it. I don't agree with it. I don't agree with it.

[00:37:49]And I've said this in print many many times. It doesn't change the data. And my first reason are what are the data in its favor. So I would still use the empty tomb, but the six I use for sure and everyone virtually everybody who writes is on board. Some and you know I get questions sometime what do you do? I know this guy at my university and he doesn't believe that fact. Has he published? No, he hasn't. Excuse me. I could only judge from published views or maybe if I heard if someone gave me a guy's lecture and it's not published. I could only go from what I hear them say.

[00:38:25]Um I I mean you know what I mean say in print or in public and they are in this order that Jesus was crucified. He died by crucifixion.

[00:38:36]Secondly, the disciples had experiences that they believed were appearance of the risen Jesus. Notice I get away from this. They saw the risen Jesus. You can't start there. They had experiences that they believe were appearances of Jesus. You know, almost the most skeptical person will grant that. Um Dale Allison is not the most ardent skeptic, but he does call himself a skeptic. And and he Yeah, I mean they do that. Uh Robert Funker, the Jesus Seminar, these guys say they had experiences that they believe were appearances. Now, three and four, you can interchange them. It's like, yeah, how do you really draw the line here?

[00:39:13]Um, and so Jesus dies, they think they see him and they are transformed and I and I say to the point of willing to die and on that one they'll say, "Oh, I was waiting for you to say they all die for their faith." We don't know that. I tell my grad students all the time. However, the most famous three are the ones for which we have the best evidence of martyrdom. And that's uh uh Peter, Paul, and James, the brother of Jesus, whose death is reported by Josephus, a non-Christian historian with new evidence recently, by the way, from Oxford University Press. But they they're interchangeable because you can ask you you can ask, well, when did they start talking about it? Because the other one is they began speaking out about right away. What came first, the speaking or the change? Wouldn't they have to be changed to speak about it? or do they speak about it because they loved him and he just died and they want to tell a story. I don't know. They're probably, you know, about the same time.

[00:40:16]But those are the they go in three sets of twos. Jesus died and they thought they saw him. Next set of twos, they began speaking about him and I don't know if they if how how the momentum picked up, but they were changed. They were transformed. I like that word. And the last two are a set of two. James and Paul, two skeptics. And by the way, James goes up in that group, too. There's almost no time difference between um they started teaching it immediately.

[00:40:47]They were transformed and James got involved because as far as I can guess from putting the data together, James wasn't at the cross. Now, come on. He was mad at Jesus. Maybe we have indep we do have independent sources that James was not a believer. And but after the ascension is described in Acts 1, just a short time later, there's all these Christians gathering in a location and it says, I'm being colloquial here, but mom and the boys were there.

[00:41:15]>> Yeah.

[00:41:16]>> And James is mentioned. Now, he could have been there and been a seeker, not been a believer. I understand that. But I think his conversion happened within that 40 days after the actual pronouncement of the death by the Roman soldiers. and when they were all together starting the church. I think James is in there. So that James the new message and the early are very close in time but three sets of twos again crucifixion thought they saw him began proclaiming it and their lives were changed and two skeptics James and Paul become believers because they too said they met the risen Jesus. Oh by the way a lot of people don't know this. We have a fragment it there's only a few fragments around. It's basically a Jewish book and it has a meeting of the risen Jesus and his brother James. It's only a fragment. It reads a little bit like um the two disciples on the way to omeas. It's kind of like that. Um, it's even called the gospel a for the Hebrews and you know and and uh there's even some goofy trends in there like a little bit to an early form of nasticism and so on but it's often dated around 125 which makes it when Papius wrote it makes it 25 years after the traditional date for the Gospel of John. It's not late.

[00:42:38]>> Okay. All right. So I I have a few follow-ups on the the minimal facts if you don't mind. And I I just want to get your take. So the first thing I I listened very carefully to your minimal fact that they that they were willing to die, right? Again, not not that they did we can't not necessarily we can prove they did die, right? Sean McDow's that's his job kind of thing to to get into that. I'm kind of curious. Um I've also phrased it myself as they were willing to suffer and or die. I'm just kind of curious um is there a reason you say willing to die? Like if if we change that to willing to suffer for their belief, >> I'm okay with that, >> but I'll say willing to die. So I'll give a critique of it.

[00:43:20]>> Okay.

[00:43:20]>> Um I think a stronger critique is not that yours isn't. I'm just saying this kind of goes after the the the meat of it and they'll go, "No, no, no. What you are doing is playing historical psychology. You cannot psychize people who live 2,000 years ago. You can't read what is in their brain or in their heart. If they say they believe, you can say they believe, but you can't make up their reasons for and against and that kind of stuff. So, you don't know that they were that they actually um you know how willing they were. And here's my comeback to that. I'll say I'm not reading their heart or their head. I'm doing something much more much simpler.

[00:44:05]I'm reading their feet. And if they go into a place, Listister is a really good point. I was just reading at my own reading of scripture the other night and I realized that Paul seems to be around that city several times. He just keeps going.

[00:44:21]Okay, why does somebody keep going somewhere where they were stoned and even their enemies conceded they were dead and the disciple Paul's disciples comes and drags him takes his body away and he comes too. Now, that can happen, but why did Paul keep going back there?

[00:44:41]There was some reason. So, I watch his feet. And if you're not afraid to go back to a place where you were left for dead and at least seriously injured, I think I can say you your life was changed to the point of being willing to die cuz come on, they the enemies thought you were dead. So, I think that's willing. Now suffering. I'm okay with what you said. But but then I would say if I was only going to say suffering, I'd like to say, well then what do you do with listister on Paul?

[00:45:12]If he went back, well then I think it's lots I think it's stronger than suffering, you know. So and I didn't say he I I agree with Paul. Actually, Shawn has a little more has a little stronger case for a couple more people than I do.

[00:45:27]I wouldn't use I wouldn't use the martyrdom of James.

[00:45:32]um John's brother, the son of Zebedee. I wouldn't use that as certain. And Sean rates it as certain. Why? Because it's recorded in the book of Acts. Is that good enough? Now, I think if I think it kind of I accept it, it's there. And I think Luke gives good evidence of in the first four verses that that's why the gospels are called Greo Roman bios, Greor Roman biography. But I don't think one source in Acts 12 is enough to say, "Oh, there we go. We got a fourth guy." There's a decent argument for a couple other people, too. We We often say that all of martyed except John. That could have been, but we have a second century source for the a martyrdom of John. Now, Shawn entertains that, and you're right, he's he's the man right now on this. And um I was a little more positive on John than than Shawn was, but not as not enough to say we have John, too. And then when I was a little surprised when I got to the end of that chapter and he didn't accept the So, but for sure I don't know I don't know virtually anybody that questions Paul, James, the brother of Jesus, um and Peter.

[00:46:48]>> Okay. Okay. So, but from what I'm hearing for you, if if uh somebody even weakened the minimal facts to just saying that we can prove they were willing to suffer, >> I'm okay. I'm all right.

[00:46:59]>> Be sufficient for for the same point kind of thing.

[00:47:02]>> Especially though, if you would add and they kept going back to the point where they were suffering, you know, it's like what's wrong with you?

[00:47:09]>> Heed sufferings.

[00:47:11]>> Yes. Here's the point. To do that, they've got to be convinced of what they're saying. And that's where I'm going.

[00:47:18]>> Gotcha. Okay. And my last followup on the six minimal facts proper here is um so so obviously the minimal fact number one it says nothing about the nature of the appearance. It it just says they had what they believed was a resurrection appearance uh sincerely believed >> or experience. I'm even I'm even a little blander. They had experiences that they believed. I think I saw Jesus last night. I don't even call them I don't call them appearances. I don't even call them visions. Okay, >> that's pretty watered down because visions can be anything.

[00:47:52]>> Awesome. So, so yeah, there there's nothing in there about touching or eating things.

[00:47:56]>> Absolutely not.

[00:47:57]>> Um I'm just kind of curious one of the main issues um that skeptics will go for because I I've heard you on a clip I I forget where it was from now, but you mentioned Well, when you say that the disciples had these experiences, um we can only prove I think you say about three of them had such an experience. So, I'm kind of curious like what can we press the minimal fact to get that all 11 of them or a majority like how many of the disciples had these experiences based on your minimal facts approach would you say like >> but you're saying what's this about I said there were only three >> um I I think that was based on the the um Paul James the brother of Jesus and Peter and you said possibly John we can prove had these experiences from the mountain.

[00:48:49]>> I don't Dale, you'll have to remind me of the place. Maybe we can do that on volume two and you can just stick it in there this time because you know that number would be relevant for hallucinations which would put it in volume two. So if you find it, please bring it up. I don't think I I ever said how many do or don't. But if there's three that were martyed for their faith, and notice the second point, it's not they had, it's they thought they had they they had experiences which they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. I could say it this way. We already talked about this point. Say they had experiences which they interpreted as a resurrection appearance. The interpret is pretty weak given. Yeah, but I want to know what the data say. Well, more about that later, but I'm just saying they had experiences that they thought, and that's the way I always word it, thought were appearances. And I don't remember saying three, but may maybe that something else I said three, and you're and you're bringing it in here, and you'll say, "What about this?" And I'm glad to talk that about that.

[00:49:49]>> Well, I I may be misremembering that that might have been about >> I'm just kind of curious then. So, >> I would I would go with this. I would go with those three that were murdered because they're my strongest case.

[00:50:00]>> Okay. But with with the minimal fact like is there a number um would you say we can say all all 11 had these experiences? Is that a part of the minimal fact or >> I I don't ever answer that question. In fact though Mike answers it Mike Lacona and he cites an email that I read to him wrote to him and we did the case for the resurrection of Jesus together. we co-authored and ma I think Mike drops James out of the appearance list because there's not enough diversity.

[00:50:36]You know, people say we don't have enough data and things like that. We got a we got a goodly amount of data especially for 2,000 years ago. But when you're going to cut James out because I'm just making something up because there's only teen not not teen that sounds like in the teens. Uh because you only have these but you have this many for Paul and Peter. Yeah, James isn't that strong. But James is still strong for that. So Mike cuts it out. Um and he said I wrote to him. All I did was when I wrote to him we agreed to use his number uh because it was on his dissertation and he didn't want to so soon after the dissertation he didn't want to. Even today he's a little bit slow to go after James. He admits it's a good argument, but he, you know, although he does say later, we we were in a journal together, uh, the Southeastern Journal of Theology, and there's several guys uh, write in there, and he said he he thinks we should expand the group of of minimal facts. And he says bodily appearances, not just appearances. That's one of the ones he's in favor of. Um, he would I I think he's very willing to move James back in, but he had to he had to write a dissertation for a group of people who were a little more a little tougher to get through, or at least he thought they would be a little tougher. So, he just didn't It's not that he he certainly didn't lie. He just didn't put it into the group. So, >> you know, I I think they could be a minimal fact, but but Paul and Peter could be stronger than James. I would say that >> but I don't know how you're going to com what you're going to do about James. He was martyed. He didn't budge, >> you know, in Jerusalem, largest church in the ancient world, and he was a pastor.

[00:52:18]>> People can be wrong and be a pastor, but James just seems to be the real thing.

[00:52:24]>> I I agree personally. Yeah. I I I just wanted to ask you because I try to make an argument on other grounds that we can prove at least six of the 11 must have had experiences.

[00:52:34]>> What six What six would you say? You get the three who were martyed. No doubt.

[00:52:39]And what other three I'm guessing. And what other three would you use?

[00:52:42]>> Yeah.

[00:52:43]>> James, Paul, James, Paul, and Peter, I suppose.

[00:52:46]>> Yeah. And uh I think if you've got Peter, you've got Andrew. Uh because they're brothers and and that sort of thing, right? That >> close just psychologically the B it's based on social dynamics and psychological things. But my main argument, it doesn't specify necessarily who these people are, but it it says that if less than a majority of the 11 had an experience uh of Jesus kind of thing, and given this experience was counter to their cultural expectations, >> the majority, so I'm kind of using the skeptics's argument against them, the majority would convince them, no, you're wrong. You're you're dreaming that this wasn't the risen Jesus. And they would be the minority would be convinced out of it. If the majority had experiences then the reverse they they could convince you know the minority that didn't see anything into believing it.

[00:53:40]So >> right >> uh you made this point earlier in today and you said plus arguments are not necessarily minus arguments if they cannot be used the other way around if they don't if they don't still follow the same criteria. If I said if I went with Mike and let's say we said three or four five let's I mean you know Sean gives you uh James the son of Zebedee you said social argument if you do you have the same argument for Andrew and and the ar by the way the martyrdom of Andrew is one of the little better ones I don't say enough to say but it's a little better and you still have that social argument for Peter so you're going to get pretty close to a half dozen but I would say notice what I said not what I didn't say what I said was. Oh, first of all, never give a number. I think unless you can find that three reference, I' I'd like to know what that was and uh you don't have to bring it up till we go on the air. You don't have to give it to me and give me time to think about it. It's it's fine on the spot. But if we have close to six and six, um if you do, but even so, I'm making the point. Let's just say I'll do this right on the Okay, nobody quote me because I'm not making this argument. I don't think it's in the book. I would say if we could only use three or four, even if we said that, I'm saying who makes the best criteria, not do the rest of them seemingly disagree. I think uh Sean's got good data, as I remember correctly, for Andrew. He definitely he says it's the best data for James, the son of Zebedee. If you're going to give that social dimension, you got Andrew being a brother for Peter. And there's even a decent evidence or through I what I mean is I'm using the best evidence. I think if we go in numbers here I'm going to get six easily. But how how about this Dale in the the creed which the Jesus seminar again put either the creed itself or its component parts and I don't really see a huge difference there but even if all these component parts were in the earliest report you've got 500 at one time.

[00:55:45]>> Yeah. You've got a group called all the apostles which is larger than the 12.

[00:55:50]And then what does the creed say right after it said after it gives the gospel message that Jesus gave verses 1 and 2 1 Corinthians 15 he says you're Christian if you buy this you're not if you don't and by he used the word believe which is the Greek word I think it's the closest in English to I do in a marriage it's making a commitment. Okay. The first thing it says is he appeared to Peter and the 12. So in the creed itself, you got bingo, you got 12. Okay. And now you could say, yeah, but that's only 12.

[00:56:20]He's got a larger group called all the apostles. And what do he do with the 500? And I'm not going to be able to, this is not my study, so I'm not going to be able to uh share this research. I hope the guy does, but he keeps me apprised. And this guy, he writes to Jesus Seminar and other guides. And he's got hundreds of correspondents, uh, emails and other things, what we call correspondents from these Jesus seminar guys. And some of these guys who are extremely critical, he will write to them and he'll go, "Hey, the creed's got 500 brethren here at one time. What do you think is the best evidence that it's not some mass ecstasy? And he'll even argue like a skeptic and go, "What if it's mass ecstasy?" And >> right, >> and where are these guys? Who interviewed them? You have a tape recorder? What do you have? And you'd be surprised how many people in the Jesus seminar, they will say over and over, "Well, I think it's the best argument against hallucination." Then he'll ask somebody else, "What do you think the be I think uh Paul had some reason there."

[00:57:30]to say 500, let's just say there were only a hundred. So I I think three on the disciples or six on the disciples, I think we're I think we're way above that if you're going to. But again, my my maybe my number one argument would be first thing out of the box in the creed, he appeared to Peter and the 12.

[00:57:48]>> Gotcha.

[00:57:49]>> And you could say I I don't buy every last bit of that, but it is that early early according to Jesus seminar pre-Pauline conversion that puts it >> Yeah. No more than two to three years after the cross.

[00:58:02]>> Yeah, that and that's totally true. All the data says look it it was all of them kind of thing. Yeah, I was just trying to give sort of like a worst case scenario like even even if you deny the data but >> oh by the way by the way book of acts the sermon summaries which are put on roughly the same categories the early creeds.

[00:58:19]>> Yeah, >> there's groups in every one of them.

[00:58:22]>> Oh yeah. And Acts 10, which is Peter, is the one that uh uh not a super conservative commentator um is going to say that's the closest one to being it's the closest one to the actual Aramaic is Acts 10. And that's Peter speaking. Then Paul does it in Acts 13. That's Pauline. And both of them have groups. In fact, over and over again in Acts, they're all groups. So we have so much data for groups. In other words, 1 Corinthians 15:5 is multiply attested by other group discussions. I think we're pretty good there. I think we're solid.

[00:59:01]>> Awesome. All right. So, um, we you already kind of covered the empty tomb, so I I'm I'm not going to ask that question, but I do have just one quick followup on that before we come to the last question for today. But so >> uh on the empty tomb I I did from when I remember scanning over it um I don't think you included a discussion of the archaeological evidence which is actually surprisingly good for the empty tomb the you know the site of Golgtha on the um near the the topos the region of the church of the holy se >> even skeptics like Joan Taylor I I asked Craig Keenir about it when he was on the channel and William Lane Craig, they seem to be convinced by this. So, what what's sort of your take on the archaeological evidence? Is it not strong enough?

[00:59:51]>> Yeah. No, I I wouldn't go there. That that that's my skeptical side coming out.

[00:59:56]>> Okay.

[00:59:57]>> Well, a lot of people don't know about me and they think I'm just, oh, everybody likes to say they were a skeptic or they were this or they were that and then they came to Christ and they go, well, how were how old were you, hot dog? Uh, 10. Were you 10 when you were a skeptic? You know, and I'm telling you, my doubting was similar to yours at a similar age. And I had 10 straight years, 10 more almost straight.

[01:00:22]And that testimony I give about almost becoming a Buddhist was not when I was 15 or 20. It's after I finished my PhD.

[01:00:32]After I finished my PhD. And so I I was really skeptical. I don't like that argument because I don't think we know exactly where the skull is. Number one.

[01:00:44]Number two, there are many graves around that region and what they usually take people to. The garden tomb is almost for sure not the right tomb. Most people think it's the church. It's the one that's underneath the church of the holy sepre to the extent that the critics say anything. And a number of the critics, I mean, I mean, you know, mid-range scholars, um, they're going to say it's probably the one underneath the, in other words, if it's under the church, I don't know how far away you are from the hill cuz I don't know where the heck the hill is, you know? So maybe in my heart, I don't want to repeat those names that you repeated in because they're friends of mine. I don't want to repeat that and and say, "Oh man, he's really skeptical." I I mean, he's not really skeptical and he's not really skeptical. Maybe they have a I don't want to pat myself on the back, but I still have a skeptical streak running through me. And nobody argues with me for this reason. I use the minimal facts argument. What am I saying? I use the critics's arguments.

[01:01:46]So, if you're if someone says, "Hey, let me go on that one. I I just don't think that argument flies." You got to appreciate the fact that I'm still a bit of a skeptic, but I don't I'm not going to have anybody call me down on my orthodoxy because I'm I from the beginning I'm taking their view. I'm saying even on their view and I think we can get there without that stuff. I don't think I don't I don't find closeness to the tomb of the hill to be very convincing to me. I don't think and if they were close, I don't see much reason to say that's where the body walked out. I just there's too many ifs there an argument for me. Now if you liked it, Bill Craig likes it. Craig Kener likes it.

[01:02:28]It doesn't make a difference to me. You guys are entitled to your own stuff. I'm just trying to be You know, Dale, you you've come from your skepticism the exact same way. you when you were doing your percentages cuz you and I were talking for hours a month >> and you wouldn't give that or that this or that point, but if it reached a certain level, you were pretty sure and that was your criteria and you granted it cuz even on your real strict criteria, it it made it. I'm still like that and I can always say, "Yeah, but I have to do minimal facts. I can't justify that."

[01:03:05]So, I really don't think I could justify that argument. I don't even like the argument. So, anyway, >> fair enough. No, that that's fascinating. Yeah, I was I was wondering where where you were on that front. So, yeah, fair enough. You're you're >> I wouldn't even think about using it.

[01:03:19]You know why we start with the skull?

[01:03:21]You know, when people say, "We think this is the skull or the tourist guy says, "Doesn't that look like a skull?"

[01:03:25]You know, there's been 2,000 years of rain and ice and sleet and and earthquakes. And especially that region, earthquakes where rocks fall out of place.

[01:03:34]>> Yeah.

[01:03:36]>> You're doing that for the crowd and the little trinkets. You're That's not the ones I'm doing the argument for.

[01:03:42]>> I'm not trying to sell them a little trinket in the empty tomb or the or the the hill.

[01:03:47]>> Fair enough. Fair enough. All right.

[01:03:48]Well, all right. My my last question for you. You're going to love this. So, you you have an appendix on near-death experiences. So, this is a first on Real Seekers. I've I've never asked you about NDEEs. Uh and I've wanted to. So you you kind of mentioned these things called evidential NDEs. So So number one, my question is what you know what what are those? Obviously for those who who might not know, but more importantly, what what's the significance of these? If somebody grants these evidential NDEs, how does that relate to because I I'm not I I might be misremembering, but I think it was Shawn McDow who said who was kind of skeptical and said, "Well, maybe they can prove substance dualism, but how do you get an afterlife from that?" And beyond that, how does it relate to a resurrection even if it gives you an afterlife?

[01:04:37]>> Good. And and I mean, that's another way of saying, did you just try to get one of your favorite arguments in here or is this really relevant to the resurrection? And I think it's extremely relevant to the resurrection. And and here's why. I we started this broadcast and you asked me that something I wasn't ready for, but the question about these guys don't like the word evidence is go, "Oh, well, who cares?" I'm thinking to myself, "Big deal." Um, not to you, but that they're, you know, you even said something to me off camera. I mean, if that's the best thing they can come up with, either they're not reading or they must be more satisfied than they're pretending they are with some of this stuff. But here here's my argument. The evidential indes, let me tell you what I use and what I don't use because the same kind of skepticism is what motivates my view of indes. Um, most NDEs are reported positively, but I just told a group of my I've done this many times over the years, but I just did this uh 4 days ago with a group of my grad students, MA and PhD students, and I told them, they said, "Hey, the hell cases that are in the NDS, um, there's not many of them to start with, and why do the ones in the east seem to be a little more popular?"

[01:05:57]I I'm a little more positive. I said number one, they're not more they're not more positive. In fact, in a really major study of uh 600 Hindu cases, um they the data they have tables with all kinds of medical data and way more Indian in the India version uh not not Native Americans uh or First Nations in Canada.

[01:06:28]um they're not they just have a lot of experiences where they think okay here's the actual actual the way it goes a doctor comes in the room and says hey you're doing pretty well I think we're going to let you go home tonight if you don't have any more episodes and the the the Indian fellow thinks during the day that he was visited by one of the demon gods, one of the the real questionable scary ones. And this being told him to his satisfaction that he was going to die before that time came, maybe dinner time at night, he was going to die. And the doctor comes in the room and says, "Well, we think we're going to let you go. Where are you?" And the guy's under the bed. And there's a lot of cases like this. He's under the bed and he's shaking. what are you doing?

[01:07:27]Shiva came in and you know I got this message and they said I was going to die and he goes well whatever if you really want to go home we're going to be back in here in an hour and you they come back in an hour he's dead.

[01:07:38]>> Oh >> um and there's a a fair percentage of those and you're thinking whoa these guys are serious. So, a lot of negative one. A lot of negative ones, but and then somebody else will say to me, "Well, fundamentalist, um, I'll bet you don't knock the hell cases." And I'll go, "I'll bet you I do." What do you mean?

[01:08:02]Where's 20? There's 21% um, negative experiences and indes.

[01:08:10]And two of the sources I found, by the way, two of the sources say 50/50, but the majority are around 2021 to say, well, that's not the New Testament one number where the broad is the path and so on. But I can see where 21 might help your argument because you're going to argue no doubt that the rest of them who went to hell aren't going to talk about it because it'll make them look pretty good. especially if the guy's a doc, I mean a a a pastor or a deacon or a elder. I go, "Nah, you're way ahead of me. I don't accept any of them." Why? I only It's like a minimal facts argument.

[01:08:49]I only accept there's a few exceptions, but so few that I basically accept data that are this worldly. you see a car accident over there, but we know from the time you passed out, it was after you had the heart attack and you were out and it was over and it's in the books and the times are there in the police report before they resuscitated you maybe by hours and got you back together again. So, we got it and we got the data. You knew what the color of the cars were. You wouldn't know who went through the stoplight. I'm just making up a an example.

[01:09:23]>> And these are the evidential ones that the ones that are this worldly. this worldly. Um, and especially I'm critical of when they try to tell you who the being of light was that appeared to them. And the saying is, uh, Jews often say angels, Buddhas, we assume Buddha, Buddhists think they saw Buddha, Hindus, one of the Hindu gods and so on.

[01:09:45]actually in a in a study that was done uh of a 100 consecutive indes in an inner in an inner faith case of these indes. Um I'm thinking that nobody said Muhammad.

[01:10:01]And I mean you'd say well that's cuz he's not the son of God. I mean he's not you know he's a greatest of the prophets. Okay. Nobody said Muhammad.

[01:10:08]Nobody said Buddha. Some people said they they say oh yeah I'm a Buddhist.

[01:10:12]But they didn't say they saw Buddha.

[01:10:14]Nobody mentioned a Hindu god. And one of the commentators said, "Of course you didn't see a Hindu god." You ever see pictures those things have eight legs and eight arms? And I'm sure no none of those guys walked into your room.

[01:10:24]They're hilarious. But none of them said they saw one of those gods that I can remember. But 20 20% 20 out of 100 uh said that they saw Jesus. What's interesting is that a number of them are not Christians.

[01:10:43]So the argument that says they lead people to the east seems to be mistaken.

[01:10:48]I thought it's a small sample and the guy's doing a a larger sample now, but it sure whatever you say about it doesn't support the view they're all going to the east, but I still don't use it. Um I I use this worldly arguments and I don't use hell because it falls prey to that argument. You say you were in hell, it was horrible and this and that. It might have been, but was that your fundamentalist upbringing? Was that because you're an alcoholic and you're convicted that you're going to be the last guy to go there. I can't vouch for what part of the country you're raised in. I I can't do that. Same reasons I don't do the minimum facts like that.

[01:11:20]And so I use the evidence ones on Earth.

[01:11:23]Now, now that's part one. What's my evidence? Okay.

[01:11:26]>> And if I told you some of the latest ones, I told an intelligent design guy, one of the top guys in the world, uh, a physicist, I told him when we were done working together, uh, I said, I don't want to get you upset, but I'm willing to gamble. At least it's I'm thinking that there's more evidence for NDEs than there is for either intelligent design or fine-tuning.

[01:11:53]>> And that's what this guy majors in. And he thought for a moment and he go he just thought and he goes I because he edited my chapter. He went through my chapter in about 20 evidential cases and he said in five categories 20 in five categories. He said I don't think I'd even argue with it in that one. I'm not going to say you're right. I'm just saying I'm not I don't know if I could make an argument against you. So it's up there. I could infer with intelligent design and finetuning. I think there's a lot of teiology, a lot of teological arguments for that. So, both of those reasons, I don't accept the upper story ones. I don't think they're very well evidence. There's a few that are exceptions, but almost none. And and there's evidence for them.

[01:12:41]I wouldn't I wouldn't take them. And and secondly, I don't think they go to the east. But here's the big thing.

[01:12:49]If you allow an afterlife, this is why it's in the book. If you allow an afterlife, don't b at me giving you evidence for a resurrection. If I already know, not only that this is a theistic universe and there's an afterlife. Oh, there not doesn't have to be a god, too. Fine.

[01:13:07]Whatever you want to say. But if there's an afterlife, don't b me mention an argument for the resurrection.

[01:13:16]Um, I'm already on first or second base.

[01:13:19]You're starting at the batters box with your argument. I if I already have an afterlife, I'm on second base. I only need a single to bring me in. I mean, that's all I need. So, it's really important if you have an afterlife. I think that's a huge head start for the resurrection argument. That's why it's in there.