So what is, in your mind, the fastest way to disarm a mythicist?
I've got a book called Historical Jesus, where I list a dozen and a half texts,
many of them outside the New Testament, in the ancient world for the existence of
Jesus.
But one probably better example I would use, some say, yeah, but you're a
Christian.
Okay, Bart Ehrman, an atheist New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman gives 15
independent sources for the crucifixion of Jesus within 100 years.
Now, 100 years is actually kind of strict, but it's a nice narrow parameter for
saying Jesus lived.
And here's an atheist.
100 years time, 15 different sources evidencing Jesus' death.
If he died, he had to have lived.
So Bart Ehrman calls that one of the two best evidences we have that Jesus lived in
history.
The other one is that Paul is the best New Testament reference we have.
Critics talk about half of Paul's epistles, 7 out of 13, being accredited,
and you can use them in arguing, because they're great sources.
Well, the best thing Paul gives us is that he was an eyewitness to the eyewitnesses.
Paul in Galatians 1 and again in Galatians 2, he went to Jerusalem and got to Peter,
James the brother of Jesus, then in Galatians 2, John.
They're all together, and the topic they're discussing, as Paul tells us,
is the nature of the gospel, to make sure they're all on the same page.
And Paul concludes, yes, they're all on the same page.
But here, that's two great sets of data for the existence of Jesus.
15 independent sources for the crucifixion of Jesus, and Paul knowing himself,
of course, Peter, James, and John, the big four, he knows all of them,
and he can ask whatever questions he wants to about what Jesus looked like when he
was walking and talking in Galilee.
So we have... it would be like asking George Washington, or asking Thomas
Jefferson, what was George like?
Asking Adams, and John Quincy Adams, and Monroe, and so on, what do you know
about George?
And then it'd be really cool if you could talk to Martha.
And that's neat, because we have the women's testimony for going to the tomb,
and so on.
So you make a multifaceted case for George Washington being the first president of
the United States, we can do the same thing with Jesus actually having existed.
And as Bart Ehrman says, he knows of nobody, no accredited specialist in the
field of religion, no matter how liberal, or how atheist, or whatever, none of them
who will have university, college, or seminary positions, none of them teach
that Jesus never lived.
The guys who teach it and claim to be scholars are people who don't have
accredited degrees.
He said with two exceptions, as Barts count, the rest do not have accredited
degrees, and none of them have university positions.
Why are they making such a big splash, do you think?
Probably because they infiltrate almost every website there is and have a bunch
of...
they have a loud presence.
Whatever side you're on, recently, there was a choice for Supreme Court
justice in this country.
How come the voices that made it on the news shows were the little chattering
voices that ran next to the senators and got up in their ear, and chirped at him,
and chirped at him, and wouldn't let him sit down at the tables, and... because
that kind of thing makes the news.
And people, whoa, and when they say, oh no, and they pretend like they're
scholars, but they don't have any training, they haven't been in the field,
and all the other scholars, atheists, even like Bart Ehrman, say they're wrong.
So to me, that's the real test.
It's not just Christians saying they're wrong, it's non-Christian scholars saying
they don't have a chance.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai