Debate: Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? - Trent Horn vs Alex O'Connor

Did Jesus rise from the dead? I'm John Nelson and today on Unbelievable, we have two exceptional guests discussing the resurrection. Joining me in the studio is Alex O' Connor, a public philosopher and host of the Within Reason podcast. And joining us online is Trent Horn, a Catholic apologist at the Council of Trent. Alex, I know you've debated Trent a couple of times before, and I think you once described him as your most formidable debating partner. Are you ready for round two or three? — I can't wait. I did. Um, in part because Trent was one of my early debates. I mean, back in probably 2019 or 2020 or something, we had an online debate and I remember thinking, you know, gosh, these things sometimes take a bit more preparation than — you might have thought. Um, but the thing I like most about Trent, I think, is he seems like just a decent bloke who's interested in having good conversations. So, I'm kind of looking forward to this. Yeah. — Well, it's so good to have you both on Unbelievable. Uh Trent, maybe we can just dive right in with the argument. Before the show began, we were discussing how your approach might differ from some other apologetic approaches to the resurrection. Can you just outline how would you argue? How would you make your historical case for the resurrection of Jesus? — Sure. And once again, I really want to thank Alex for being here. Uh it's a joy to get to speak with him again. We had one formal debate before on Pints with Aquinas and then we had kind of an informal back and forth uh with capturing Christianity a few years ago. So, it's been a little while. I appreciate the description most formidable opponent. I worry always when the bar is set so high. One finds in these situations it's good to set the bar extremely low when it comes to expectations. But if I can just be a good bloke or a decent chap, that is something I I aim to do. Um, when I speak to people, I do get concerned and when you see people trying to put forward I think Alex you probably I'd love for your thoughts on this maybe on a future episode something of you to talk about when it comes to putting forward a defense of the Christian faith. I've noticed a little bit of a shift in the past 1015 years and how Christians go about that. And a lot of Christians now become much more aggressive uh and very not even just forthright but aggressive even profane uh kind of no holds spar like taking the worst of the new atheist internet stuff and putting forward and then they're also kind of light on the substance and I don't like that. I think that we should follow the facts and the evidence let it speak and we don't have to be overexaggerated or especially not profane in how we engage it. So when it

comes to evidence of the resurrection, uh I've noticed like in the past 10 years, I've studied a lot between, you know, two groups that often debate this. You'll have um skeptics on one side like Alex or previously debates, you know, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, and then you have a lot of evangelical apologists, people like William Lane Craig and Mike Lacona. Uh, and one thing I've noticed that they both kind of have in common is they're very skeptical towards uh, nonprotestant uh, supernatural things. Uh, so for example, I I've seen I I've watched in debates where uh, William Lane Craig or Mike Loner others are, you know, will talk about, you know, how do you explain these groups of individuals, groups of disciples claim to see the risen Jesus? I mean group hallucinations are almost unheard of. Uh and so like a lot of my case will be similar to theirs saying we have really good historical evidence when it comes to showing the resurrection. It's basically showing three facts. Jesus was alive, then he was dead, then he was alive again. So whatever the evidence that would show he was alive in the first place should be good enough to show he's alive in the second place. And that is people seeing that he's alive and groups of especially groups of people seeing this as recorded in first Corinthians. I also think we have good historical evidence for Luke's account of these group appearances that Luke is the atheist Richard Carrier says is a better than average historian which is a lot from a very critical atheist like Richard. Uh so what will happen in these situations? I've seen Bartman. I've seen others say well you why don't you believe in these you know groups of people say that they saw the Virgin Mary at Fatima or Zetun Egypt. We even have photographs of this apparition that has appeared that hundreds of thousands of people saw this illuminated figure at Zun. Uh Travis Doomsday did a whole academic book that recently on the Zon apparition and he finds it inexplicable. Dale Allison, who I know you spoke with recently, Alex, uh he finds it — just inexplicable because even the Egyptian authorities shut off the electricity to the area and yet this illuminated figure that looks a lot like the Virgin Mary uh still appeared. So for me, I I take more middle ground saying, yeah, I think that was a supernatural event. And also, I think these other events like Fatima or Zetun, for me, they lend evidence to Jesus's resurrection because if Jesus did rise from the dead, these appearances of his mother would not be unexpected. I'd expect a son to take care of his mom, take her up to heaven, and she might go talk to the faithful. But if Jesus did not rise from the dead, these sorts of apparitions and appearances would be very unexpected. So, I'm open more so that there's many strange and odd things that happen. Some of them can be explained naturally. Uh but many I don't think can. So I think that we should follow evidence. See, we don't necessarily we shouldn't necessarily rush to supernatural explanations, but we should see which explanation best accounts for everything without cramming the evidence, without bringing in outside ad hoc explanations. And I think Jesus rising from the dead really does do a good job of explaining a lot of the data surrounding Jesus's resurrection, but also these other supernatural events throughout history that are connected to the Christian faith. So that's kind of how I look at it. — Alex, I was recently hosting your tour uh across the UK, an evening with Alex Okconor, and so many people wanted to find out about what you thought about apparitions. I don't know if that's something you've looked into a lot or uh what do you make of this kind of additional case for the resurrection? — Well, it's funny, isn't it? because a lot of the time uh when arguing with a Protestant you can say something like well then how do you explain the Marian apparitions and with a Catholic that doesn't quite fly. Um I suppose I have a general suspicion of these kinds of religious events and that's not to say that they didn't happen but to say that in so far as concerns my faith in the resurrected Jesus they don't do very much and I can tell you why. Um it's because I don't think that such experiences are unique to the Christian tradition. Although sort of the experience of a bodily risen Christ by multiple people all at once is definitely something that would be unique in history, you don't get group hallucinations of that kind of physical kind. There are a few things I want to say. Firstly, you do have inexplicable group uh visions of I think equally inexplicable events which I'll give you some examples of. Uh and secondly, I'm actually not quite sure of the nature of the resurrected Jesus as reported in the gospels. There seems to be at least a bit of a back and forth amongst the gospel authors and within Paul's letters — as to the physicality of Jesus's resurrection, leading some scholars to posit things such as transphysicality and this kind of stuff to explain why at some points it seems like Jesus is this ghostly figure who tells people not to touch him and can move through walls and how Paul says that flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom and all of this kind of stuff and uh second Peter talking about how he has this tent of a body that he will one day get rid of as we've seen Christ essentially do. Uh but at the same time you have these I think pmical uh moments of Jesus saying no no like touch my feet watch me eat some fish seems like a sort of odd thing to prioritize unless you want to say that the glorified resurrected body uh gets hungry very easily. It seems strange that one of the first priorities of Jesus would be you know give me the fish so I can eat it in front of you and prove that I'm physical. it would seem a little bit strange. Um, on the point of sort of group hallucinations, as it were, I don't know if these things occur. What I know is that we've got lots of reports throughout history of people claiming to see some very strange things. I like to talk about Mormonism and I like to do it for a few reasons. Firstly, because it usually offers a bit of a sort of left field comparison for Christians, but also in this context. I know that Trent has spent a lot of time looking into Mormonism and debating Mormonism. I would like to tell people for example that if you pick up any copy of the Book of Mormon, it always begins with testimonies from first the three witnesses and then secondly the eight witnesses. And these are men who claimed to see in the first instance Joseph Smith the golden plates of Joseph Smith be handed by an angel to Joseph Smith. Now those first three witnesses claimed that they saw this. Now it's a little bit complicated because it's like two of them saw it at the same time and then one of them saw it later. And you might say that he was hallucinating, but I would say how do you account for the corroboration between that and the other two uh at the very least these men who claimed to see something again collectively which I don't think Trent can grant happened. I don't think he can grant that an angel gave Joseph Smith the golden plates and yet they claim to have seen this and there's something extra here that you don't get in the Christian tradition which is that it's kind of a reverse pull. People often say well Paul used to persecute Christians so why would he see this vision? This is the other way around and I think therefore stronger. All three of these men were eventually excommunicated from the Mormon church. — They were they fell out with Joseph Smith and they were excommunicated from the church. Yet until the day of their death, they asserted that they had seen the Book of Mormon. Um it's complicated as Trent knows uh Martin Harris is said to have sort of seen the plates with his spiritual eyes. So I'm attempting to draw an analogy here, right? So Martin Harris is one of three witnesses, the other being Oliver Calry and David Whitman. And in 1838, Steven Bernett claims that Martin Harris didn't see it with his natural eyes, but that it was a kind of vision. But then Martin Harris later said, "Look, as surely as I see my hands, — I saw the golden plates. " — What I want to point out is that there are analoges here, — which is that you've got this sort of claim of group appearances, which seem a little bit strange. you've got this kind of reason why maybe they wouldn't want to make this claim and then you've got this slight debate over well was it physical was it spiritual we're not entirely sure um people often talk about the — the persecution of the apostles so when I bring up the Mormon church people say oh yeah but you don't understand that Christians were persecuted they were put to death by Nero and Dialesian and I'm like have you looked into Mormon history do you not know that in the lifetimes of these witnesses and other witnesses to Mormon miracles Mormons were persecuted by the United States of America there was the Mormon Extermination Act in Missouri, which literally called for the extermination and expulsion of Mormons. They were chased out of basically every state that they went into. In other words, I'd like to know how we explain that there. Then the eight witnesses who don't witness the angel, but they do witness the golden plates. Eight of them who again, three of those guys also lose touch with the Mormon church, fall out with Joseph Smith and get excommunicated, but still attest that that's what they saw. Uh more to the point though, there's this extraordinary event which I found when I was researching the history of the Mormon church a while ago, — which is a transfiguration event. It's absolutely extraordinary. So — in 1844, I'm sure Trent will be familiar with this. In 1844, there was something of a succession crisis, right? Joseph Smith had died and they didn't know who was going to be the next leader. So they called a conference in August on the 8th of August. — Uh Brigham Young is one of the speakers. Now we know from Brigham Y. Young's later diaries that he says that there were thousands of people present. He says at this conference. So let's say there were at least a few hundred. And amazingly George Cannon writes in 1870 which is just 26 years later that Brigham Young while speaking for you know buying for vying for the leadership transfigures into the image and likeness and voice of Joseph Smith. He says who that was present on that occasion can ever forget the impression it made upon them. If Joseph had risen from the dead and spoken in their hearing, the effect could not have been more startling than it was to many present at that meeting. — So, we've got this report of probably hundreds of people seeing quite a miraculous event. Now, you could say, well, that report comes 26 years later. — Okay. And how much later were Paul's reports? the gospel reports? Also note that in 1857 which is just 13 years after this event after the transfiguration you have uh Albert Carrington's experience recorded where Carrington says that well Brigham Young recounts uh Albert Carrington's experience and says that Carrington says that people could not tell him from Joseph Smith and could not see anyone but Joseph speaking. What you'll notice is that there's still this evidence that there's some kind of transfigurative event, but much less detailed, but much more close to the source. In 1869, 25 years later, so somewhere in the middle, Orson Hyde, who was an early Mormon leader, uh, confirmed the event, saying it was the voice of Joseph, and there were the features, gestures, and even the stature of Joseph. So what we have are three independent — in one case eyewitness account because Ason Hyde was actually speaking on the same day at the conference eyewitness accounts of a transfiguration — of Brigham Young in front of hundreds of witnesses many of whom in the words of George Cannon he says who was present on that occasion that could ever forget this in other words if you're in any doubt about this you could go and ask the witnesses who were there — now shel that for a moment and think about how people talk about things like Trent's already mentioned the appearances uh that Paul recounts in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul says that Jesus appeared to Peter, which is strange because we don't get that narrated in the gospel stories, even though that seems to be the first and most important. Uh but I mean, most pressingly, Paul says that Jesus appears to 500 people as above 500 people, probably more than possibly above in a visionary experience. That's something else. — Uh and people say, "Look, this is our only source, — but you know, Paul says some of these people are still alive, so if you're in any doubt, you could just go and ask them. " And I would say, well, why didn't people go and ask about the Mormon transfiguration experiences? Perhaps because if you read uh George Quchanan's account, it's not clear who these people are. I mean, people often say this. They say, you know, those 500 people, some of them are still alive. So, you could have gone and checked. How — you going to like walk to Jerusalem, which has tens of thousands of people at minimum in it, and just start asking around and see if anyone's seen the risen Christ? How many knows would it take before you said, "Okay, maybe not. " Then, in other words, I I have no idea why Paul says that Jesus appeared to 500 people. We don't know that Paul was there. He probably wasn't. He says he's passing down something that was passed on to him, which says that it's an early creed, — but we're not quite sure where that creed ends because Paul inserts himself at the end of it, but we don't know where he's heard it from. We don't know who these 500 people are. We don't know why they were gathered. We don't know how many of them believed. We don't know if any of them were counted. We don't know anything about this kind of event. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm just saying that compared to something like the events of the transfiguration of Brigham Young from someone like outside of all of this who has no vested interest here really I see them as equally plausible perhaps more plausible in the case of Mormonism because that happened in the 1800s and we have at least one eyewitness account that says uh that he saw it directly. — We don't have anything like that for the gospels. The only eyewitness account that we have for the resurrection of Jesus, the only one is Paul who did not see a bodily resurrected Christ but saw a flash in the sky and heard a voice which is not the same kind of thing. — Trent, I'd love to hear your response to two things there. Um the first being this broader uh comparison with Mormonism and secondly this idea that Paul didn't believe in a physical resurrection. — Sure. So let me start with Paul. I would say that Paul being a Pharisee was firmly committed to the idea that resurrection is bodily. When we see in his letters he is dealing with the Corinthians, he's dealing actually with skeptical people. People at that time didn't necessarily believe everything that was pitched to them. So in 1 Corinthians 15, he's dealing with people who can't even believe there's going to be a bodily resurrection or what is that going to be like? That I think many people when they hear about this, they think, "Oh, I'm going to be a zombie. " like the skeleton gets out of the ground and the flesh is drooping off of it. Like who wants to have that? Paul is saying, "No, you're not going to be that, but just a disembodied spirit either. " In his letter to the Corinthians, he's very clear when he says that we do not, he compares being a disembodied spirit to being naked without clothes or naked outside of a tent, a condition you don't want to be in. uh rather when he says like in Philippians 3:21, Paul says that God will change our lowly bodies to conform to his glorious physical body. Uh so he often talks about being not being clothed with immortality, having a physical body that is not limited by the physics of this universe. Uh so for example, like you don't have to be a ghostly presence to walk through walls. Technically speaking, in a physical body, you're mostly empty space. If you think about the space between atoms and electrons, if you had omnipotent control over your, now you can't walk through solid substances because of nuclear force, but if you had a bit more control over the universe, you could pass solid objects through one another through a kind of phasing, uh, if you will. So I think those descriptions uh showing that Jesus has a physical body like eating fish. Showing I'm not a ghost. I'm not a spirit. Uh I am the inauguration of the resurrection which was unheard of for Jews at that time before the end of the world. That's striking that they proclaim Jesus rose. Not just that he was in heaven, Abraham's bosom that he rose. The reference to Jesus when Paul says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom. He uses that as a semitism, a Jewish way of speaking about the world, worldly things, things that are merely material cannot inherit the kingdom. You have to be spiritual. So we often think of spiritual like a substance, but spiritual also means an orientation. Like if I say the Bible's a spiritual book, it's not going to pass through you if I throw it at you. So I would say that when it comes to Paul, I think we have what manifests the movement of Christianity, this radical proclamation of the resurrection that I would say makes the most sense with an a an encounter with the risen Jesus that could be cross-cheed by seeing, for example, that his tomb is empty. Like if I had a friend, in fact, actually I gave a eulogy once for a friend who died when she was 19 years old. I gave the eulogy at the funeral that night. I had a dream. She sat at the foot of my bed and we talked and it felt really real. — But I woke up realizing, okay, that's just a vision. And in the New Testament, they talk about visions, a vision in the night. They know the difference between visions and seeing someone. But if I saw that in the in broad daylight, I go and dig up her casket, and if it's empty, I would have had questions. Uh, now, when it comes to Mormonism, I appreciate Alex getting into this. I know a I knew a little while ago, Alex, I feel like the Mormons were like, "Alex is almost here. He's ready to be Mormon. " a lot of that happen. — Yeah, that that happened a lot. — I saw a bit of that and I was like, "Wow, if you knew Alex's take on things like young earth creationism, why don't you get Alex's take on the Mormon view of history, I think he's going to be much more skeptical of that. " I think this is important, though. This why I brought up uh about Mary and Zatune. I think, and I don't want to drone on and on. I I'll get to this, but there there's a lot to respond to, but I think Alex, you would be sensitive. Many skeptics when they look at Christians are probably saying, let's make sure we're on the same page here. Look, if you're going to follow evidence, that's all fine and dandy, but I want to see that you are following it consistently. Yes. If you're car if you're carving out special exceptions for what you believe and then you're dismissive of all the other stuff, well, now you see where I'm coming from. So, I think that's where that's the challenge in defense. I think that's at least I'm seeing that more now. The challenge is all right, let's follow your standard, your standards of evidence that will only show Jesus's resurrection and Christian miracles, but not necessarily non-Christian things. Although I will. So you is that a fair summary of that? — Oh, yeah, for sure. — Okay. Uh, so my reply then, and I think this getting back to what I said earlier about um like evangelical apologists that are frequently engaged in this or other Christians, there are some Christians who hold to a view that's called in Christian theology. is a debate between cessationism and continuationism. Do divine carrorisms do miracles happen after the apostolic age? And there are some Christians who say, "No, that's all frauds. The miracles ended with the death of the apostles. " And then there are more Pentecostal Christians who say, "Well, no, God still performs miracles. " And as a Catholic, we're certainly continuationist. We have saints that have been proclaimed to do all kinds of different miracles. And I would say with pretty good evidence behind several of them. Uh so we would say, well, no, there's no reason to shut that off. So, I think that some people who defend the resurrection, they're very, very skeptical of paranormal or postappostolic miracles when they shouldn't be. Now, I don't believe all of them. I think some have bad evidence for them or insufficient evidence. Likewise, when it comes to non-Christian religions, I think that God could perform miracles or signs or wonders among non-Christians and that could still be harmonious with Christian theology. Yes. Because God loves everybody. So if a if you know a Buddhist prays in the middle of a flood to be saved, God might miraculously save her because he loves that person. He loves her without necessarily endorsing the truth of Buddhism. The problem I think that you might raise is you might say, "Yes, that's all fine and dandy, all fine and good. " Uh but what about these things that appear to be miracles that — right that appear to endorse a competing theology? Um so when I would look at miracle claims for a competing theology, uh there's two options here. One, I could say that there's a natural explanation that we're overlooking. Uh, two, there could be a supernatural there. malevolent explanation. Uh, you know, that's demonically inspired. Now, one might say that's kind of are you going to say everything that's not you is a demon. That's kind of a copout. No, I think that we can apply tests to see is the message driving people away from, you know, true theology about Jesus. Now, with Mormonism, I'm kind of on the fence about this one, Alex. I It could be I think there are very compelling natural explanations for many of the things you brought up. And I think some of them it could there could be um demonic explanations or it could be both. Maybe it started as a hoax and the devil kind of runs with it like in the case you gave about the transfiguration. I mean, it sounds a lot like people could be, you know, really enthralled with a religious speaker at an event. They're at essentially a rally type atmosphere where you're already religiously primed for a speaker and they're talking about how, oh, you sound just like him. Uh, you know, it's like I have Shawn McDow here and he maybe he could give a talk at a evangelical church and they're like, my goodness, Sean, I saw your dad Josh on stage when you were talking. It was just like him. And it's like, well, he's a lot like Josh. That probably true. And then, you know, it kind of that that's that sounds a little bit different than me than saying, "Yeah, my rabbi that was crucified three days ago and put in a tomb, we saw him. He was eating. He appeared to different groups of people. " So, I So, that example I don't think is as compelling to me. Uh the other examples I think there's really way more disanalogous elements between the resurrection claim and Mormonism. I could briefly run through them we could unpack. Like I said, I don't want to go too on, but you threw a lot out there. Mhm. — Um, so a few elements there. One, the people who saw the golden plates, that doesn't do much for me. They could have been natural artifacts. In 1843, there were people who created a hoax set of plates called the Kinderhook plates. Yes. That Joseph went to engage and read. So, those could have been natural artifacts. It could have been hoaxes. I'm not as impressed by that. The three witnesses who saw the angel, when you look through, there's a lot of discrepancies. It seems like they had to go and Joseph led them out there. Remember, he's already trying to convince them of this. Whereas with the apostles, all of them are starting with a blank slate. Jesus is dead. What do we do? Joseph is trying to convince these two people. One of them, Martin Harris, who is financially backing this endeavor. And so has some skin in the game on this uh of this. And so they're praying and they're praying a lot in order to see something. I think that's very different when it comes to

persecution. I'll leave on this point. Uh I agree with you. People are willing to take risks for rewards. So, Joseph Smith took a lot of risks and I think though from his perspective there were rewards he was seeking. Uh he became a political leader in Nauvoo. He planned to run for president. Uh he acquired multiple brides some of them being underage as young as 14. So we have a we had a television show in the US 20 years ago called to catch a predator. And um and I saw in that show men were willing to take many many risks for underage girls. So I I'm not as I'm not as surprised that he's go and then when Smith was arrested and put in the Carthage City jail, — he was not like a martyr led to the slaughter. He had a handgun smuggled into the jail and when a when a gunfight broke out, he shot back. That's not quite what Jesus and the apostles did. So I I grant you there's going to be similarities in any religious claims, but for me I think it's very disanalogous. And also for me when it comes to Mormonism versus Christianity, um I would say with Christianity, we don't have really any evidence that says, oh, we've got counterbalancing evidence that this contradicts what we know about the world. Most of our evidence is just, well, can we believe what they said about Jesus? We're not making that's why like I'm not a young earth creationist for example because I think it contradicts what we know about the world from science. But the problem is I think Mormonism makes those kind of claims about ancient Israelites being the progenitors of Native Americans and a lot of other things that contradict what we know about the world. That sets the probability of it being true much lower than we have of Christianity. — Alex, one of the things that Trent brought up is the idea that uh Paul was a Pharisee. that the dominant conception of resurrection in the ancient world was a physical one. You know, people were expecting to get their flesh and bones back. So, I wondered what you made of that objection. — Yeah, sure. Um I will answer that. I promise. I just I must take a moment to respond to what Trent said just then, but I I do want to get back to the New Testament. I think that's very important. I don't want to talk about Mormonism all day, but I'm not just going to talk about Mormonism. I'm doing it — to draw a comparison. So, specifically, a few things that Trent said that I pulled out. Firstly, he said that you got to remember that the people that Joseph took out to see the plates were kind of, you know, they were like expectations. They were sort of trying to make them believe it. Trent believes that Jesus predicted his own resurrection. And maybe the disciples didn't fully understand what was happening there. But the idea that this sort of comes out of the blue, I think is not entirely true. He also said that Martin Harris, one of the first witnesses to the angel and the golden plates, uh was financially backing the project and so would have a vested interest. Well, who was financially backing the ministry of Jesus? — We're told in the gospels it was the women. It was Mary Magdalene who is the first woman to see the risen Jesus according to at least some of the narratives. So again a direct uh narrative link there I think. Um also the point about Joseph's death uh yeah like quite the shootout. I don't think that martyrs need not put up a fight. I mean, it's not like Joseph was being killed, you know, for the It's not like he was being asked to recant or something and he refused and took death for that reason. He was just, of course, he had a message to spread. He was trying to annex Texas to make it a sort of he was running for president to annex Texas and make it into a Mormon paradise. You know, he's got things to do. So, yeah, he shot back. And I've heard Trent say before on the point of the martyrdom of the apostles to bring it back to the New Testament. We're told sometimes that all of these disciples died for what they believed in. Of course, we have absolutely no evidence that any of them died for their faith except for James who James the brother of John that is that's mentioned in Acts as being beheaded by Herod although we're not told why. And Trent has said in the past that okay we don't know that they died for their belief historically at least. Uh but we do know there's a video that you made Trent where you said well because of the death of their leader because Jesus was put to death. You know that they must have been living in fear that a similar kind of thing could happen to them. Now whatever you think about the death of Joseph Smith you could say the same thing about him. Don't you think his followers might also be a little bit concerned that they're going to suffer under the same kind of violence, especially given how persecuted they were being uh by the US government and state governments? And yet the expansion rate of the early Mormon church is the same as the expansion rate of the early Christian community, as Rodney Stark famously

pointed out. As for the physicality of Jesus, it's not something I want to die on here. Like this I don't want to sort of there's a joke in there about a hill. Um but I do think there are a few strange things. Firstly, — you could try to die on it, Alex. We won't be dead forever, my friend. That's how this thing works. — One hopes. Well, when I see you again, it'll be uh interesting to try and high five and see what happens. I think um there are a few mysteries in this for me. The first is like, okay, so much of this relies upon Paul, who I think is at best unclear about the physicality of Jesus. I mean, like Trent has just defended Paul's use of the word spiritual in a way that would like spiritual body. He also just to be clear you mentioned Philippians I think it's chapter 3 where Paul says you know we will sort of uh take on a new body just like Christ and you said Christ's physical body the text doesn't say that it says body but it does not say physical body just to be absolutely clear right I understand that the use of the word body there probably means something corporeal to most readers but it's not clear in the same way that Trent hears the word spiritual body and says well Paul kind of meant this when I hear the use of the word body I can say well you know they kind of mean this my reading is that I just kind of don't really know about the nature of the resur resurrected body. That's from Paul who never actually met the risen Jesus. This is the thing. This is the key thing. Where can we go to find accounts of what the actual risen Jesus was actually like? Well, there were no eyewitness accounts. There are best even if you Okay, if you agree with the traditional authorship of the gospels, then maybe there are two, right? But like what is the nature of some of the post-resurrection experiences that we're given? I mean, firstly, there's just the problem that our earliest gospel doesn't have any at all. uh and the fact that as the dates get later for the gospels, the stories get more and they also get more fanciful theological. — So you're referring to Mark's gospel there where there's an illusion to an appearance to Peter in Galilee, but we don't have that appearance narrated. — That's right. I mean Mark's gospel, at least the earliest manuscripts of Mark's gospel end with the women fleeing, afraid, saying nothing. Um which is sort of in keeping with Mark and themes about, you know, uh cowardice and and going away. Uh there's lots to be said about the empty tomb. Maybe we can get on to that in the third section or something. But these experiences, I mean, okay, so there's this idea of having a new resurrected body got a couple of mysteries. Firstly, Jesus in John's gospel is still said to have the stigmata that is the wounds in the hands in the side, — right? To the extent that Thomas is allowed to see them, he's invited to see them, we don't know whether he actually touches them or not. So don't take that as Caravajio was correct. — It's I in fact he's almost certainly false in my view. Um, it seems to me a better reading that as soon as Thomas is given the opportunity. Bear in mind, people forget this. Jesus appears to the 11 and shows them his wounds — and they sort of believe in him and then Thomas isn't among them. And then Thomas says until I see the wounds and we sort of lambast Thomas for not having enough faith even though Jesus showed his wounds to the 11 first but no one has ever said to touch them. But the fact is he's still got the stigmata. Now I want to say if Jesus's resurrected body is essentially the same one that he died on the cross with why does he retain some of his uh sort of physical ailments but not all of them? — I mean for example Jesus walking on the road to Emmas in Luke's gospel one of the most extraordinary stories in the fact that the two disciples clear pass and the other one don't recognize Jesus and yet when he sits down and breaks bread they suddenly recognize him. Now, there could be some sort of miraculous intervention here, right? But looking at these as historical sources, it seems to me that this is the genre of mythology. I mean, I don't know if Trent believes the road to be a historical story of something that actually happened. It seems to me definitely mythological. That's not to say false or made up. It's just to say it's a particular genre. And certainly, if Jesus still had the wounds from his crucifixion, I think that a man who' just undergone a brutal crucifixion a few days earlier would be noticeably recognizable as such. But it seems that Jesus body is glorified. It seems that it's not something like and yet when you get to John's gospel, he's still got the wounds of his crucifixion. But I guess like only some of them. Yeah. Okay. Maybe God decided to give him like a new spiritual body but kept the stigmata as some kind like I think you know Augustine and people like this write about how it was kind of like a trophy of his victory. And I don't know why wouldn't the blood on his head from the crown of thorns be a literal trophy of his victory? You know why the stigmata? maybe because it's a sort of uh a good narrative point. It it's a very sort of striking image that can be used in what is essentially a theological and non-historical uh story. — And just to clarify there, would you see the gospel resurrection stories as all taking on this mythological character? — Uh I I don't know what the intentions of the writers were. I don't know with with the road to Emmas, it seems to me almost certain that the intention there is mythological. Um I'm not sure about John's gospel. Matthew's gospel is a little bit more sparse. I mean the appearance sort of uh subdued. But one interesting thing that I want to point out is that like — so Matthew says Matthew's gospel says that the 11 disciples uh go to the mountain in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. — What mountain? when — I think that a key insight into the nature of the resurrection, the resurrected bodies is the earlier transfiguration of Jesus — where Jesus takes three of his closest disciples, Peter, James, and John up a mountain where suddenly his body is transfigured. He's glowing. His robes are said to be whiter than anyone could bleach them. And then suddenly Moses and Elijah appear — and Peter, by the way, Luke's gospel says that these guys are on the edge of sleep. Yeah. — Which is a little bit odd, right? That's it's a strange detail to include as if that kind of matters. You know, hypnogogic visions — are one of the most by which I mean visions on the edge of sleep like between sleep and wakefulness are one of the most common times that people have those kinds of visions are when they're sort of half asleep. Um implying that maybe something like that was going on here and you know they see these figures and I suppose I want to know what the nature of this appearance is. I know Trent's talked about this before and he says well look you know Jesus was physically there and he was transfigured. It wasn't some kind of vision. But what about like Moses and Elijah? Elijah is a bit tricky because Elijah said to ascend into heaven, but Moses, we're told in what Deuteronomy 34, is buried in the desert in Moab. — So when Jesus So when Moses appeared on uh the mountain with Jesus, did he sort of climb up out of the grave and walk over and up the mountain physically? And if so, how did they just suddenly appear? It seems to me, in other words, much more visionary. Now, whatever that experience, I think Rudolph Bolman thinks that the transfiguration was originally a post-resurrection narrative that got put earlier in the narrative. Now, why might that have happened? Well, for me, it seems clearly visionary. So, maybe there's one that's one reason for not having it as part of these post-resurrection appearances. But also specifically, Jesus says after the disciples not to say anything to anyone about what they've seen until after he's risen from the dead — because they're being given a glimpse of the resurrection body. Is that — Well, quite possibly. Right. And then they're walking down the mountain and Mark's gospel says that they were talking to each other about what it means to rise from the dead. And given the context of what they've just seen, they think, do you think what we just saw this sort of strange apparition of like Moses? Do you think that's kind of the thing that we're talking about? Um, also I mean crucially I think this is really interesting. Um, John, what's the most embarrassing verse of the New Testament? — It's the verse in the mini apocalypse in Mark according to CS Lewis. — CS Lewis says it's the most embarrassing verse in — this generation will pass away before all of these things take place. — Why? Why is that so embarrassing? Because Mark says, "Some of you standing here today will not taste death until you see — the kingdom. " — Yeah. — And the son of man in his glory. What is the very next thing that happens in every single one of the synoptic gospels? It's the transfiguration. Says, you know, six or eight days later, Jesus. So, he says, "Some of you here will not taste death until you see the kingdom and the glory. " And then six days later, he takes them up a mountain and he transfigures before them and there's an apparition of Moses and Elijah. And Peter gets confused and wants to build them a tabernacle and all this kind of stuff. And then there's a voice from heaven and a cloud comes and descends. this kind of extraordinary visionary experience which I think is supposed to mimic the kind of thing that we we're seeing uh in the resurrection which is why in Matthew's gospel when it says you know they went to the mountain where Jesus told them to go like — what mountain are we talking about we're never told about this it seems plausible that it's the same mountain as the mount of transfiguration given that it's in Galilee and uh not only that but when they go up the mountain which seems like a — very specific place to see a physical person why up the mountain some of them doubt it. — Why would they doubt? If you if I John, I've known you for years now. If you died and I saw you as I see you now talking to me as physical as you are, — I might sort of go like, "Oh, I just I don't know if I can believe. " But I wouldn't I would not be able to be convinced that it was you if it were not physically stood in front of me. Yet some of those disciples doubted. — Whereas if I had some kind of visionary experience with a few other people and some said, "I think that was John. Come back. " I might say, "You know what? I'm not sure about that, guys. " In other words, I think there are some hints there. But I don't know. That's a lot and it's not really a point. Maybe Trent can expertly uh siv out whatever points I might have made in there and see what he has to say to them. — Yeah, Trent, where would you like to take this? — I have a lot. So, I think it's always prudent to work backwards from what we just heard and we'll go back through a lot of the points that Alex raised. Uh so, when it comes to the transfiguration, I think that was a physical historical event. And I do think it's interesting that it's Moses and Elijah because Elijah, the previous narrative in the Old Testament said he was assumed bodily into heaven. — But there's also Jewish tradition that Moses's body was taken into heaven. Uh Jude chapter 9 refers to the dispute between uh the archangel Gabriel and the devil about over Moses's body. There's extra uh testamental evidence to a belief that Moses had also been taken up into heaven. — I think Pho, — right? So I think that there could be evidence that uh you know I think that holy people can be assumed into heaven. Moses, Elijah as a Catholic, I think the blessed virgin Mary is up there bodily which also explains these apparitions as well or these appearances. Uh so I I think that that's not problematic for me and especially that Peter says I want to build you tents. If you just see a vision of somebody in the sky, I find it interesting that if we're just making a grand theological uh investigation, uh what's interesting here is I like to compare that to okay, well, when do we see mythmaking? What does it look like? When you read like the Gospel of Peter, for example, when people go on an absolute mythmaking binge. Uh it's really over the top. That's from probably mid 2nd century. And you have all the Romans at the tomb, all of the Jews, the angels come down, they're like they come out of the tomb, they're giants. Jesus comes out, he's like 500 feet tall. So, so that's a lot different than the more sober accounts, especially like what we see in Mark. So, it's kind of funny that Mark's a bit more sober. We say, "Oh, well, he doesn't have all these appearances. " Then, if he did have a bunch, you'd say, "Ah, that would just be a bunch of mythmaking. " So, I worry if that's kind of catch 22 there. I would say Mark is very clear. — Can I ask you, Trent, a clarifying question on that? Because I mean, do you see apologetic features within the canonical gospel narratives themselves? You know, it's often pointed out, for example, that Matthew and Luke have a new tomb in which no one was laid or John laid. So, um, so do you find those same features within the Gospels, but it's just in a more sober form? — Yes. But just because there is an apologetic, it doesn't follow that it's a hollow defense or con artistry or trying to defend that which is false. Like Matthew very clearly describes an apologetic palemic that had been going on between Christians and Jews for some time about debating what happened to Jesus's body with the Jews of his time arguing that the body had been stolen and then the Christians saying no it wasn't and because there were guards and other things like that which shows that the apologetic there does show there was a there's a missing body. The Jews just didn't say oh he was thrown into a pit he was devoured by the dogs because of the dog he was. We don't see them making that kind of argument. So there's an apologetic, but it can reveal truths that are helpful to the case we're making. Let me go quick through some of the other things Alex raised though about Paul physical body. I would say when Paul uses the Greek word s. So in Philippians 3:21, I don't recall if I said physical. I said transformed to be like his glorious body. I did say that. Uh the word s when Paul uses s uses it to refer to a physical body, something with corporeal form. Uh so he doesn't use suk or soul or anything like that to describe what we will be. He always uses that more firmer word soma. Uh when it comes to uh the stigmata I I think I lean towards Augustine there that I think it's been poetically put that the only man-made thing in heaven will be the wounds of the crucifixion on Christ. And so I think that would really stand to yeah that this is how Christ triumphed over death and was able to show yes it is I. It is not someone else. It is not some kind of a duplicate. This is I am the same person body and soul who was crucified who stands before you. Now, — which wounds do you think he'll have? — What wounds will he have? Yeah. — Uh I think that um there's the five sacred wounds. They've talked about the wounds in the feet, the hands or wrists and possibly abrasions around the head. But when it comes to speculating what heaven will be like and what my savior will be like when I meet him, I don't like to speculate too much. I kind of I leave that one up to him. When it comes to though the um the physical so the a lot of this though it comes to let's say okay you're saying well we got Paul he's got the appearances how do we know this wasn't just hallucination that's where I depart from the minifax people and saying I think especially like Luke's description of these group appearances I think Luke is a very reliable source when talking about things uh so for example um just because something's recorded only in one place it doesn't mean that's you know it didn't happen anywhere else so for example In AD41, the emperor Claudius expelled a bunch of Jews from the city of Rome. What's interesting is that Josephus and Tacitus don't record this event. It's only recorded in two places. Swatonius, who says they did that because of Crestus, which might means they were fighting about Christ. — Uh, and Luke in Acts 18:2, it's an off-hand reference to it when he meets Priscilla and Aquilla. Just very off-hand reference, but a lot of times Luke makes these kind of off-hand things and they're 100% historically accurate. Colin Heamer's book, the book of Acts and the setting of Hellenistic history goes through that a lot. So I think I have good evidence in that. Also, Luke was a traveling companion of Paul. I think that's very clear. So we get a we get that helps back up, you know, Paul's conversion experience and that this wasn't just a private vision. People with him saw something, not the whole thing, — but not a bodily Christ, right? — Uh why? I don't know. He hears a voice. He says, "Who who is it that I'm speaking to? is I am Jesus who you're persecuting. But it seems that Paul compares him and he says in 1 Corinthians 9ine, "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? " He compares his encounter to Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15 to these other appearances that are physical appearances. And when he says this to one untimely born, — I think that's a reference to that after uh Pentecost, you know, after uh you know, this period. Here's what's interesting, Alex, is like we don't have a bunch of other Jesus appearances. Uh they stop basically. So I think Paul is saying that he had an encounter like the apostles, but it was unusually late for him to be given, which I think also for me it um it shows this is very interesting that if you had a bunch of hopped up religious believers in the first century, I would have expected the apostles in their letters. It's always funny to see what they complain about kind of indirectly reveals what's really going on here. I would expect them to say like, "Hey, these people claim Jesus spoke to them and said this. " No, no. He only appeared to us, you know, don't run around with them. Cuz we even have people today, right, who say that Jesus appeared to them and told them stuff. — So, it's striking to me that problem is not in the first century church with a bunch of fervent believers. There's a an understanding of it being just this kind of historical reality uh just for the apostles. Finally, about the Mormon stuff and the dying, you know, Peter, Paul, and I want to just cover that cuz I worked backwards from what you said. Um — I agree with you. The argument who would die for a lie is a horribly bad one. It's a horrible argument because uh Muslim suicide bombers do that all the time. The Tamil Tigers, there's people who die for things that are a lie all the time. The greater question is who would die for something they that they know is a lie? That that's the clear question. So in early Mormonism, I grant you there are many Mormons who went out were willing to endure persecution. Um you know things like that. Uh but most of those people if they weren't the original 11 witnesses would not have been in a place to know whether it's true or false. So it doesn't say much. Uh isn't that the same in that regard? — You just said like it you just said that there were lots of early believers who went out and were willing to be persecuted, but unless they were the 11 original 11 witnesses, you know, they wouldn't have seen it directly. I was actually unclear for a second whether you were talking about Mormonism or Christianity. No, no. And I agree with you. So for me, the martyrdom or

the risk of martyrdom for the apostles, and I disagree. I would recommend for our listeners, get Shawn McDow's book, the fate of the apostles. It's an published by Rutledge. It is an academic study on the fate of the twel apostles. And he puts in very high historical confidence we can know that at least Peter, Paul, and James, the brother of Jesus, uh, were martyed. And we have good evidence for some of the others as well. — But um, so I think there is evidence for that. First Clement speaks about it very early. John also looks over Peters. But my point is that what I said was also we see in Paul's own writings and in Acts there was a willingness to be martyed. And my point would be that the these apostles go out. They don't seem to do it for any kind of earthly reward like we might see with someone like Joseph Smith. They do it for the ferveny of communicating this message. the risk of martyrdom is something that is an argument for the sincerity of one's testimony. So I believe that the apostles were sincere and Paul was sincere and we don't have a similar in Mormonism a fervent opponent to Mormonism in the early Mormon church who then converts and comes to believe. We don't have a Paul figure like that. So I think Christianity is unique there. I would say that they're very sincere and so we have to grapple with how to explain their sincere testimony. But we do have accounts of people who um who fall out with the church and yet hold fast to the vision that they had. I mean, the thing that's important here is did they see what they claimed to see? Um there's like I mean so much to say uh on the Martin of the Apostles, you know, I agree that book is is well worth reading. Um first Clement as you know Trent uh as in Clement's first epistle which is where this reference comes to to Peter says there were there was he says let's consider the good apostles. He says there was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one but many labors and thus having ex went to his appointed place of glory. Now some people say been martyed but as you know Trent like this really just means borne his testimony. That's what the word means. Like I I'm not saying that we we know Peter wasn't uh — wasn't martyed, but this idea of an early testimony in Clement, all Clement actually says is that he bore his testimony and then went to his appointed place of glory, which could mean that he went around, you know, did his wonderful preaching and then rested on his laurels because he'd done such a great job. We don't know for sure. In fact, you know, Christian tradition has it that Peter was crucified upside down. If you ever look at artwork of Peter's uh death, it's always him being crucified upside down. And I always love to ask people, what is the actual earliest textual source that we have for the martyrdom of Peter being crucified upside down? I I'm not sure if our listeners know, you two know, it's the apocryphal acts of Peter. — In other context, when we talk about apocryphal texts, we're told to be absolutely suspicious of their historicity and mythmaking. And yet when it comes to quite an important part of Christian tradition, I don't know if Trent believes that Peter was crucified upside down or not, but if he does, it is interesting to me that the earliest textual source that we have for that is an apocryphal text. You know, Trent mentioned apocryphal texts earlier. He said um if we look at the Gospel of Peter, we see these sort of mythological embellishments gone crazy. And he said, and I quote, you know, well, I don't quote directly because I only have a few notes here, but you said about how there were lots of Romans all you said like all of the Romans were at the tomb. You then also said, "And angels came down. " Those were the two sort of examples that you chose. And then I think to myself, well, just look at Matthew's gospel. Matthew who invents Romans at the tomb to do away with the rumor which was being spread that Jesus' body had been stolen. Matthew who alone has this angel descend down from the heavens and roll the stone away before the eyes of witnesses. Stuff that isn't in the other gospels. In other words, like I don't know, even if it's not quite as strong, the kind of things you're pointing to as evidences of like mythmaking in the Gospel of Peter, which you will definitely say is apocryphal, are also present, I think, in Matthew. You also mentioned first Corinthians. And I think I hate to say Trent, I think you begged the question. You said, well, Paul must believe in a physical resurrection because he compares his experience in 1 Corinthians 15 to those of the apostles which were physical. One man's modus tone modus ponans is another man's motus to strength. I could just say yes. Well, Paul compared his experience to those of the apostles. So, they were the same kind. And you say, well, because the disciples must have been physical, so was Paul's. Whereas, I say the only eyewitness account that we have of a resurrection appearance is Paul seeing a vision. And so, yes, if he compares his experience to those of the apostles in 1 Corinthians 15, then I'm led to believe that means that the apostles experiences were visionary. There's also some evidence here that perhaps you know Rudolph Bolman's idea that the transfiguration of Jesus was originally a post-resurrection appearance. What's one good piece of evidence for this? Perhaps the fact that the first person Paul mentions in his list of people is Peter, the most important of the disciples who nowhere else is any kind of appearance to Peter mentioned. — Except I think there's an illusion in Luke, isn't there? — An illusion. — There's an illusion to an — He's risen as has appeared to Peter. Yes. — Yes. Sorry. I mean like in terms of like a narrative event nar of what actually happens to Peter, right? We don't see this anywhere, but we do see this happen — at the transfiguration where Peter is specifically taken up the mountain to see this event. And so I think there's some good evidence to suggest that maybe that might have been the original appearance of Peter, maybe even the one that Luke alludes to. That's kind of a bit besides the point.

— Trent, I wonder whether we could probe further your views into the Marxism. What do you make of the evidence that Alex just presented? — Right. So, what I said and I've been continually saying is that it is not the martyrdom of the apostles per se that proves Jesus's resurrection or anything like that. What we are trying to do is we want to establish uh the sincerity of testimony. So, for example, there's a lot of strange sightings. Uh, I've read other books trying to downplay the resurrection and they'll make comparisons to Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or Aliens or things like that. — Uh, and I think in many of those cases though, there's good evidence that the testimony may not be sincere because it's often positively received. You get to be in the news, people get to celebrate you. It's, you know, it's all well and good in that respect. Uh but what I'm showing is that the early proclaimers of Jesus's resurrection who would have known whether it really happened or not if they just simply made the whole thing up. Uh so Paul and Peter and the original apostles that they're willing to endure uh threats to their lives and that's very clear in Paul's letters that he's stoned, thrown out of synagogues, worried about what the Romans may do to them. Uh so I think that's very clear. Now the now I think when one leads that all the way to martyrdom it's even more evidence of sincerity. Uh when it comes to Peter's martyrdom I think many people interpret Clement of Rome as speaking of that. Uh Ignatius of Antioch also talks about it in an indirect way in AD 107. The gospel of John as well seems to — Yes. And that's another important one about the death you will endure. And John, of course, would have been written, you know, 30 years after Peter died. — And then John 21, the chapter in which that appears was written some years after that. — Right? So, hey, we're not going down the road. I got my own path of end down here. All right. You're fine. Uh, now the acts of Peter. Now, my point about apocryphal gospels, I do not believe that everything in an apocryphal gospel uh needs to be taken is just false. I think that's bad historioggraphy to say, you know, okay, everything that is in a gospel is historical bedrock and everything that is not in a gospel is just totally false. We have to sift through the different evidences here. Uh my point with the Gospel of Peter was that there appears to be an apologetic motif contradicting what we know when putting the large like the crowds and the Jewish priests and all of the Romans, everyone there present at the tomb. uh more the angelic element. It's not even just the presence of angels. They emerge from the tomb and they're very large. And Jesus himself emerges from the tomb and he's very big. He's like a he's like a giant. Uh — he's got a walking talking cross behind him as well, which is quite surprising. — Actually, we're not entirely sure. Mark Goodaker has made some arguments that the Latin or the original language may refer to not the cross but the crucified one. Okay. — So, that's a little sticky wicket there. We have to uh So, I mean, as I said once before, I want to be I'm always trying to dig down deep to make sure I got all my ducks in a row here. But, I think that that's very different from when I look at um the angels that go, but it's not even angels. And Mark is just it's just a young man who's described who is assumed to be an angel. So, it's a very sober account. Uh but even if there are angels that are present, they're here. They inform the women about this. But even the guards themselves, you might, some might say, "Well, that was an apologetic motif that was invented that still shows an explanation that the tomb was empty. " I'm not prepared to throw that out. If you made up the guard story, uh you would have put the guards there on Friday, not Saturday, because the body still could have been stolen. And uh there were uh it could have been related to an event that happened about 16 years before the resurrection. Uh there was a slave named Clemens who uh he was a slave to a grippa. He was the grandson of Caesar Augustus and he stole the bones of his murdered master uh to claim that his master survived and he impersonated him to say yeah I'm him to try to like uh you know because he be bore a likeness to him to try to you know continue on his legacy to impersonate him and because that's one of the big reasons like why would there be guards? How did Herod know more you know how did Pilate know more than like the apostles did? I think there could have been a concern about that during um Passover and Pilate doesn't want any riots during Passover. He's dealt with that before. Enough of this nonsense. Uh so, so I'm not prepared to throw out the guard story in that way. I don't think it shows a mythmaking in

that regard. But I do think that if you're making up, you know, making up something, the apologetic motif is put everybody there so you've got really good evidence. But like in Mark and the other gospels agree with this, the first witnesses are women. And women's testimony in the ancient world is incredibly low value. It's basically below a criminals. Uh which I think speaks to uh the fact that it's historical. Even more so the idea that you have Mark and Luke describing this. If you were going to make up the whole gospel accounts, pick Peter, Paul, Philillip, pick somebody more notable. I see a lot of signs that point towards a sober uh historical account of just describing things as they happened. — Alex, I saw you perk up when Trent mentioned the women witnesses argument. Did you have anything to say to that? — So much. Um, I'm actually surprised to hear this come up. I know that this is a common sort of apologetical motif, but to me it's — it's clear as day. You know, women discover the empty tomb. Um, which means that, you know, it must be true because women's testimony wasn't worth that much, and so why would this be invented? There are a few things to say here. Firstly, who knew where the tomb was? — The women were told that the disciples had fled at the crucif. — Well, we'll get to that. I mean, maybe they could have done, but we know that they weren't. weren't at the crucifixion and we know that the that they that they'd fled. And so in keeping with the theme of the disciples fleeing afraid and their cowardice, they wouldn't even know where Jesus was buried. Of course, it's going to be the women who like it's like a narrative if the story said that Peter went to the tomb. The question would be, well, how did he find out? Well, Peter does eventually go to the tomb. Why is that? Because yes, women discover the empty tomb. They have no idea what's happened. And what's the first thing that they go and do? — They go and get the men to come and verify it for us, — right? They run to the men and they say, "Oh, we don't know what's happened. And they're these, you know, as the early Christian uh critic Celsus says, they're these hysterical women and they they don't know what they've seen and they run to the disciples and it's the disciples who come and verify it for them. So I mean it's an instant verification, right? Like in other words, if this were some apologetical motif, yeah, that might it might be that that's why they have them go and check. — But does that apply better to Matthew, Luke, and John than to that original kernel of the account in Mark? — Oh, certainly. Yeah. Yeah. It certainly does. I mean, going and finding the men. Of course it does. Um, but like another thing to point out is that like this might be a bit of a silly thing to say, but people often just sort of assume that ancient writers are stupider than we are. Like we sometimes think, and by the way, I'm not saying that this is made up, but I'm saying if you want to argue that it's not, and you say, well, you know, they wouldn't do this. Like, because isn't it so realistic that they'd have this feature? Doesn't it make it all that more believable? Do you think ancient authors would have been clever enough to think of that themselves as well? you know, like it just seems to me, in other words, that like the reasons that we have for thinking that it might be historical are things which could have occurred to somebody who was trying to come up with it. But I think it's clear as day that it would be the women who would discover the empty tomb because they're the ones who knew where it was. They were the ones who were following Jesus throughout his passion. They were the ones who saw where he was buried. And then, as I say, the first thing they go and do is grab some men to go and verify it for them. So, I don't know if this is as sort of feminist a story. — And I suppose the sort of social function of women in the ancient world in association with mourning. I wondered what you — I was also going to say like you know who's anointing the bodies although of course in John's gospel it's Nicodemus and Joseph Arythea who sort of bring these oils and investments to — to the body but by the way what's the first thing that Mary Magdeline thinks when she sees the empty tomb she doesn't think oh gosh remember when Jesus predicted that he was going to rise from the dead that must be what's happened they say she says they've taken the Lord and we do not know where they have put him — her first assumption is that the body has been taken and not only that but she says this in John's gospel after running back to the disciples when in Luke's gospel we're told that on way back from the tomb, Jesus appears to her himself. If Jesus has just appeared to her and told her to go and tell the disciples, it'd be really weird for her to go to the disciples and say, "They've taken the Lord and we do not know where they've put him. " That point of which in Luke's gospel, Jesus says, "Touch my feet," you know, like has all these sort of extra physicality uh bits. Look, I I think it's also um important actually. No, you know what? I I've been throwing out too much. Yeah, I'd like to hear what you have to respond to that argument about the women trent. — Right. So, I would be cautious in where Alex is going here when we're trying to sift through ancient documents and records. Uh what is historical? What is literary? What is trying to pull one over on us? What an apologetic motif. I would be worried about the clever forger thesis. this idea that people will say and I've seen this before in debates about whether Jesus existed where you have on the far extreme the people who say no Jesus never existed and anytime evidence is presented saying well this is really good evidence that there was a man named Jesus we have Josephus Tacitus and it sounds just like them da da the recalcitrant the entransigent mythicist will say ah but a very clever Christian forger would make it sound just like Tacitus or just like Josephus and of course, we'd expect it to sound just like them. Uh, but I'm like, "Oh, wait a minute. So, if it doesn't sound like them, it's a forgery. " But also, if it sounds like them, it's just a really, really smart forger. — To be clear, I don't believe this. So, I just want to point out to people that when thinking [snorts] about forgery, people weren't. But, I of I don't think the story was forged. I just want to say that like the two points that were important there, I think, Trent, were that — the women were the ones who were following Jesus during the passion and the women immediately go and get men to verify the facts for them. — Right. Uh so first then so we have to go back uh and my the comparison I was making was between an example in the gospel of Peter of something that appears here's a mindset of somebody who is trying to add details just to support the account versus someone who appears to just be recording um recording the account itself. Uh when it comes to the women though like well of course women would be there because they knew the location of the tomb. Well, I would say that Joseph of Arythea knew the location and is described as a secret disciple of Jesus. And I agree with Dale Allison. I think there's good evidence that this was not made up that someone to fictionalize an account of their beloved rabbi would pay him tribute by having him being buried of an honorable burial by friends and others. And it was not unheard of, by the way, for crucifixion victims to have burials. We have a first century skeleton of a man named Yhoan. Yes. From a village called Givat Havtar. And he was a crucifixion victim. and he's he was found in a tomb. uh now so the women itself you might say well look even if they do see it you know it's confirmed by the men in the account so it's not that big a deal but then I would ask the question you know it's like okay if he was making it up then they would have that and their testimony is fine but we also have to be careful to say if it did happen what would we expect if the women going to the tomb not sure what they're going to do just because they want to wail and mourn and they encounter that it's open and they see Jesus what would we expect to happen well we'd expect them to go and tell others. And if you heard about this, we wouldn't expect the other male disciples to just do nothing. I I'd go check you would. So, so I think it fits. We always have to ask that question. What, you know, what would we expect if X happened? Does it conform to that? And it still goes back to just following the evidence where it goes. But I think and I want to put this here because we're, you know, we're going to run out of time real soon. It's how it goes in this exchange. And I love it because we're having a lot of fun. I would just encourage everyone

listening, look, we've got something very extraordinary here. We have very I think Alex and I both agree it's very clear Jesus did die. He existed. He died. — Yep. — And then well, I guess this is how it works. Alex, you can see if I'm right about this. It's like we close in on the resurrection event from two directions. Very strong evidence and it moves towards this thing in the middle we're trying to figure out. So it's like Jesus died, undeniable. There's within a few years we have people proclaiming he had risen bodily from the dead. So now it's like we're trying to get back to that Easter Sunday morning and trying to figure out some I think everyone can agree something happened. And I think it's up to everyone should really look into this well the data to put forward what explains that happened. And I think resurrection it does explain all the data without having to compress or force it really whereas other explanations tend to have to bring in more ad hoc elements. — Alex, I'm really interested to kind of take stock and I mean presumably there are a number of facts here that uh scholars and historians discuss. You know, one of them would be the crucifixion. I think you'd be on board with that. — We have the empty tomb. It seems like you might be agnostic about the empty tomb. And then the appearances, you think that there were appearances of Jesus in the sense of people had visions, hallucinations? — I'm hypothes. — Um I'm saying there are sort of levels of skepticism. Like I have sort of I there are like doors that need to sort of be broken open, right? And as you said, it sort of goes in that order. It's like, was there a man called Jesus? Yes. Okay. What's next? He was crucified. Okay. Yes. laid in a tomb. — Okay. Maybe. What's next? And then we sort of keep going. Trent said earlier at the very beginning of this debate, he said, you know, the evidence uh that Jesus was alive after his death is as good as the evidence that he was alive before his death. I don't know if that was if that's what you believe or if it just sort of came out that way. — Well, I [clears throat] think I meant to say that there are similar kinds of ways to verify that. Just you could show someone's alive by people saying we saw him. — Sure. I just don't think that's it's true because of course that one of the reasons why we're so certain of Jesus's existence is a relatively speaking for the ancient world a wealth of extra biblical sources by supporters by opponents just referencing the existence of this person. Of course we don't have any like references to appearances to Jesus after his death outside of what could be apologetical material but certainly is material of his supporters including some events which you might suspect have some attention drawn to them elsewhere such as the appearance of the 500 in Paul. Well, it would be very hard to find non-Christian testimony of a Christian fact like the resurrection because if one were convicted of that fact. — I'm not just looking for that. I'm looking for uh so for example we Jesus's sort of lifetime we have sort of people who believe you could have an extra biblical source that people believe 500 people had seen Jesus. You could have an extra biblical source that says 500 people claim to see Jesus. In fact, even if we had if we discovered a historical source that just said that just corroborated the 500 wasn't an eyewitness testimony, but just said and 500 people and here were some of their names and here's where it occurred claim to see Jesus. I would see that as incredible evidence for the resurrection. Not because it needs to be something that an opponent couldn't have written, but just because it would be something that's like corroborating. It shows that there is an event which was uh known for the people. — I don't know, Alex. I think because you might just say, well, Tacitus or someone else just got this from someone who read Paul and so we, you know, you might there might be questions about whether it's independently attested. But the 500, by the way, the 500, I would say, you know, well, you know, this is a mysterious thing. I think what makes a lot of sense of it is in Matthew 28 there is that's where we talk about those who doubted in the appearance on the mountain or the hilltop in G. I think it very well could be because there is the — the description of talking about the you know my go and appear to my brothers and other you know those you know described in Mark and in Matthew and we have that fulfillment there and that would make sense if there were like especially if you had like the sermon on the mount right you're on a mount that's how hundreds of people can hear you in the ancient world when you're talking to them I've been to that area in Galilee myself too that would make sense that okay so we have a large enough area for someone to see someone like that — and that would explain if you have 500 people those who didn't know Jesus as well, those to be the doubters versus those who knew him very well. — The only point that I'm making is that I don't know if I would say that about that evidence. I have no idea. But what I'm saying is that when you say that the we have just as good reasons to think that he was alive before the crucifixion as after, I just don't think that's true. We might have just as good sort of uh testimony from like the gospels maybe. But the thing that makes the historical Jesus case so strong and undeniable is the extra biblical material. You don't have any of that for the post-resurrection appearances. Maybe. Because I would I would still find the evidence from the gospels and Paul's letters to Jesus existing to be enough. But for me, it's like, okay, — if Jesus did not rise from the dead, it becomes much more difficult to explain why James, who didn't believe, converted, why Paul, who was a persecutor, converted, and why all of these scared and frightened apostles boldly proclaim this truth. Uh I think it fulfills that explanatory data here very well. — I understand what you're saying, Trent. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have enough reason to believe in the resurrection. I'm saying specifically the claim that you have as much good reason to believe that Jesus was alive before the crucifixion as afterwards. — Sure. Hey, I'm willing to dial that. I'm willing to trade that one for it's you're reasonable to believe in the resurrection. I'm willing to make a I'll make a trade on that. Secondly, I

find it really important when people talk about like the persecution of the apostles. Um, you kind of get this merging between like people like Peter and people like Paul, you know, like earlier you were talking about uh how you know the persecution of the apostles is clear. If you look at Paul's letters, he talks very clearly about the persecutions he underwent. Certainly so. But remember what Paul saw. Remember the nature of Paul's experience. It's a flash of light. Paul did not meet the bodily resurrected Jesus. And that's the claim that we're discussing whether Jesus bodily resurrected from the dead. You you I don't want to say admit you just assert as well as anyone else could that people can happily die for things that they think are true but didn't see themselves. The whole point is that they need to have seen it themselves. And Paul did not see a bodily resurrected uh Jesus. The I mean what's the who's the earliest martyr? Who's the earliest Christian martyr? I mean — well probably well Steven would be the first martyr and then James's description in Acts 12. — Steven. Okay. And what is Steven martyed for? — Having a vision in the sky. He looks up and he sees Jesus stood or sat at the right hand of G of the father and he's stoned to death for it. The like the earliest martyrm story we have is of a vision. The most obvious persecution that we have first f firstand is that of Paul whose experience was that of a vision. The idea of the physical resurrection of Jesus even if we agree that Peter was persecuted we don't know what it is that Peter saw. Yeah, we have some like second third-hand accounts from the gospels. That's if you believe the traditional authorship, but that's not the same thing as saying that an I that we know for a fact that an eyewitness to a specific event was persecuted for belief in that event. Even with James, we don't know why he was put to death. Surely, I mean, the most plausible conclusion is that he was preaching Christianity. Herod says that this was pleasing to the Jews when he uh when he kills James, but we just don't know the details, at least not strongly. — Josephus says that he was stoned to death for being a lawb breaker. And he's specifically referencing Josephus as the brother of Christ, the one who was called Christ. — Yes, I understand that. But, you know, we don't we just don't know the details of the reasons behind the martyrdom of this apostle. I think although look, this is maybe a question for Sha McDall. I just want to say that on the point of persecution, we need to be very careful about who we're talking about and keep it separate. Let's not say, look, we know that the apostles were persecuted because look at the letters of Paul and we know that Paul was persecuted. — It's not just that. But we als we also have the testimony in the book of Acts and we also have Tacitus talking about the Nonian persecution. — But then that's not firsthand, right? You understand what I'm saying is that — it doesn't necessarily have to be firsthand because I think there's good evidence that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul and that he's a good historian. — Is that because of the Wii passages? — Yeah, I think that's one element to it. And I've read the critiques of people trying to say that's some kind of seagoing narrative motif. And I think — I wasn't going to go down that route. I was just going to say that do you therefore reject the traditional authorship of John's gospel because near the end of John's gospel in John chapter 20 uh the beloved disciple is referred to seeing something and the author of John's gospel says and we know that his testimony is true and given that we had to just mean that it's speaking in the first person that means that John was not authored by the beloved disciple right — it is possible that John was authored by someone else like John the prespitter that was part of the Yohanine community uh so I do think it provides other evidence I don't think it's as strong as Luke, for example. But that's why, as I said before, I think that you don't want to take a dogmatic view when you're making a historical case. You're going to weigh things a little bit. And so, — it's important because I mean, John asked about the empty tomb, which I didn't have a chance to speak about.

I wanted to I mean, a moment ago, you said that look, it's important to ask what would you expect if it were true? And I agree with you. The data fits with what would happen if it were true. What I'm saying is it also fits with what would happen if it were not true. And in that position as an agnostic, I'm not going to believe in the resurrection. Right? It might not be enough for a Christian to abandon faith. — Okay? — But I believe it. I believe it does because I think there are other explanations. For example, looking at the empty tomb, this is really important, right? The empty tomb is like a key point here. Like okay, I don't know if there was an empty tomb. I mean I think just like primaacy I have some suspicion that a member of the Sanhedrin could just like ask Pilate to take the body off the cross and like keep it for himself when typically Romans would leave bodies on the cross as evidence of crucifixion. Maybe because it was a Jewish I mean they say it's because of the Jewish holiday they take them down from the cross as if Pilate cares about Jewish holidays. Maybe he does because he doesn't want to like incite a riot or something. Maybe. I'm not entirely sure but let's just say that there were some kind of tomb. What's the nature of this tomb? We're told it's Joseph of Arythea's tomb. Only in Matthew's gospel. John's gospel seems to imply that it's specifically not Joseph of Arytheus tomb. In fact, in John chapter 19, uh, verse 38, it's Joseph and Nicodemus who are taking the body of Jesus. And it says, "At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden. And in the garden was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. " Because it was the Jewish day of preparation. And since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. Because it was the Jewish day of preparation. This is the day before the Sabbath. So they weren't they had to solve this problem before the Sabbath began. That is before Friday night. And there's this tomb that happens to be nearby. What do you think are the odds that a wealthy aristocrat like Joseph Arythea would own a tomb not on his property but near a crucifixion site for Roman criminals? That seems extremely unlikely. What's more likely is what John tells us which is that there was tomb nearby. — Tomb tombs would be outside the city. It's an unclean site. And that's exactly what we find when we do archaeological investigations of Jerusalem. you would have people executed outside of the city, outside of the gates. — I think what John is telling Yeah. But in terms of where you would put the remains, I think if Joseph owns a tomb, it's unlikely to be near this site of crucifixion. And in fact, I think John's gospel is telling us that by saying that it's because it's the day of Jewish preparation. It doesn't if this was just Joseph's tomb, why would it be because it was the Jewish day of preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they put Jesus there? It seems to me that this is like an emergency burial in time for the Sabbath. When does the Sabbath end? It ends on Saturday night. So then the burial party come to this emergency tomb, take the body of Jesus and give it a proper burial. Early that morning when it's still dark, so a few hours later, Mary comes along, sees an empty tomb, sees that the stone has already been rolled away and says what? She assumes that the body has been taken. So there are two hypotheses here. One is that it's stolen. Some people think the body is stolen. We have good evidence for the stealing of bodies in the ancient world. Um we you'll know about the Nazareth inscription, a first century Greek uh sort of legal inscription from an unknown Roman emperor which uh issues the death penalty for people who steal bodies and tample and temp and tamper with tombs. So we know that in the ancient world people were stealing bodies. We also have uh epitaps on Jewish graves cursing people who steal bodies. We know that the stealing of bodies was something done popularly enough that they had to warn against it. We also know of course about the pmic in Matthew's gospel which specifically says that there is a rumor that Jesus's body has been stolen. People are obviously believing this even by the time of Matthew's the writing of Matthew's gospel. Um but it doesn't have to be and you ask well who would steal it. One of the reasons people stole bodies was for use in like magical incantations, you know, like magicians and the like. And of course they specifically wanted people who'd undergone violent deaths. And the idea of a holy man who'd undergone a violent death would just be too tempting to give up. But even if you don't want to believe that, there's also the fact that the burial party of Jesus is said in John's gospel to have given him emergency burial right nearby the place because it was the Jewish day of preparation and it's after the Sabbath that the tomb is now empty and Mary Magdalene sees the tomb and her first thought is that they've taken the Lord and we do not know where they have put him. Like I'm not going to say that the body was taken. I'm not going to I don't even know if there was an empty tomb. If they were, the idea that it was taken either by a grave robber or by the burial party of Joseph of Arythea is exceptionally more likely to me than that Jesus rose from the dead. Again, I won't say it didn't happen. I just want to say that that's a skeptical scenario which seems to me perfectly plausible since you asked about the — Trent. Trent, can I just give you a few minutes to respond to that those claims about the MT? — Of course. Uh and I would just say Alex, yes, you were what you were doing here is essentially you're being a barrist, you know, a clever barristister for the uh the atheist cause that you don't have to prove. You're just, you know, creating doubt. Perhaps this other thing happened to belief. — Well, but that's the thing. I think though when we're looking, we could say something did happen here. And I wanted to comment on the what you said earlier. You could say, yeah, sure, resurrection explains all the data, — but so does no resurrection. But I would say no resurrection is not a hypothesis. It is an umbrella under which you would put specific hypotheses that would have to be weighed upon their merits and the data that they do explain. And that there is no single explanation. Usually what skeptics have to do is they must conjoin different things. So missing body along with group hallucinations. And when you start conjoining hypotheses that lowers their probability when you do that. So, so you I would say for people, okay, look at it. Resurrection explains it. What other things do explain it? And you'll start to run into problems of starting to squish and ignore the data or compress it. Uh so, when it comes to like body theft, you're correct. There are inscriptions warning against grave robbery, but grave robbery was primarily about valuables that might be left in a grave. Uh specifically things like the linens or the tunics. uh there are these and so what's surprising then of course is in our narratives those that those things are left behind or when you have necromancers who would steal bodies there you're correct there not necessarily in Judea this seemed to be more outside of Judea you have spellcasters necromancers we have found skulls with like candles inside of them that could be evidence of necromancy but normally that's what they would do they just cut off the head and especially if you're going to take that you know just cut the head off that's all you need for the spell uh just leave the body. Or hey, if you're going to be there anyways and you're a dub you're a dubious fellow who's into witchcraft, you might like some free garments that are super expensive in the ancient world, take that with you as well. So, I would say — hey there, hey, there's no nice Walmart to go to get stuff. — You don't think you don't think that there are people who found a corpse on the side of the, you know, not Jewish, but pagan maybe, but hey, if you're a grave robber, you're grave. You find linens. — Depends on how nice the linen is, right? I mean, kids like Joseph and Nicodemus were doing a bit of an emergency burial. They probably just threw him in whatever they could find. — I'm sure the fact of the matter is just having that kind of stuff, you would want to get that and steal it. That's what I think most of the inscriptions are dealing with here. But when it comes to someone being in a tomb that, as I said before, that's not implausible. We have the Yhoan uh evidence from that skeleton that was found. So clearly, he you know, the idea like, oh, why would they give the body to someone a Jew to be buried? It did happen. And so we have previous precedent for that going on. Uh so yeah, I think that for for Romans giving a crucified body to — to someone to bury it, — that it wasn't simply left on a cross that it could be given a proper burial, okay, — in a tomb. So we know that did happen. So it's not out of the bounds for someone to request that. in this case someone like Joseph of — Aram that would be in keeping in venue with I don't believe it's historical but the gospels want to say that pilot sort of increasingly distances himself from uh responsibility for the death of Jesus and so if he really did feel as guilty as he said in the gospels to do so then maybe somebody asking for a proper burial would make him go like yeah okay sure have that it'll make me feel a little — his wife might have bugged him his wife his wife no his wife said I had a horrible dream and this man I want nothing and that's why she's actually venerated as a saint in the uh in the Eastern Christian church because of that. — Yeah. I just of course I don't think Pilate like in any story other than the gospels we have we don't get any idea of Pilot as someone who's like a compassionate man who obviously cares very much about his wife and cares about this man Jesus. I think he was a ruthless leader who couldn't give a squat about — when I read the history about him I find he is someone who's constantly embattled with the Jewish authorities and dealing with them and they're a giant headache for him. like when the golden plates that Pho describes, they had an image of Caesar on it that were brought into Jerusalem and there's a whole ride about it. And Pilate does not just drop the hammer on the Jews in response to that. He has to play politics there. So, I think that fits in also with the

historical. — Well, speaking of golden plates, um I'm just — I'm joking. — And by the way, one of the witnesses, David Whitmer, said God told him Mormonism was a false church. I don't we don't find anything like that with the apostles. Joseph Smith's moralism was a false church, but he still saw an angel give the golden plates. The golden plates were real. The angel Moroni was real. It's just that Joseph Smith's religion was — false. — And it could be natural explanation of of heightened we're in the woods playing with our eyes closing with the eyes of faith or demonic in the sense that look, if I was the devil, I'd want to make a religion that says you know you don't believe Jesus is God and you don't even pray to Jesus because in Mormonism you don't pray to Jesus. similar to how, you know, when Martin Luther brings about Protestantism, uh it would be one thing for him to say, you know, I think these Catholics are wrong and I don't believe in God the resurrection of Jesus. It's another thing to say, I think that their religious interpretation is incorrect and it's because of my belief. It's because of the strength of my belief in the original message that I want to be able to say this. I don't know, man. I feel like somebody who I think you've got a reverse pull, which I think is even stronger. For example, if Paul was said to have gone the other way around, if Paul was a Christian and then fell out with Peter, fell out with the early church, decided that Christianity is bogus, but he still saw the risen Christ. He thinks and he was in like excommunication with the early Christian community, but he just couldn't until the day he died couldn't deny that he'd seen this vision. I think that'd be exceptionally strong evidence in favor of the resurrection. But the problem is with Whitmer, he says God confirms one religion and then he says God confirmed another religion to him. I would I'm going to believe God over Whitmer in saying that if you're going to accuse God of these direct kind of contradictions, it more shows a problem with your character and testimony. — Gentlemen, fascinating discussion of Mormonism. Uh thank you for watching Unbelievable on whether Mormonism is true. Actually, going back to the

resurrection, I do have one final question for you, Alex. And I've got a Trent, as well. Alex, what would it take for you to believe in the resurre resurrection? You know, what standard of evidence, what quantity of evidence would you like to see uh for you to put your faith in this? — Uh I don't know if there's any particular instance of course if I had a Damascus experience of my own, even if it were just visionary, but I was told to, you know, believe in this particular narrative, which I suppose is the kind of thing Trent must believe happened to Paul. He didn't see the physical Jesus, but maybe Jesus kind of like told him that he was physical when he resurrected. I know not now, but like I was at one point and you will be go and ask Peter about it rather than just appearing physically himself. — Alex, what if what if you were with Steven Woodford and you saw this stuff and Steven said, "What the hell was that voice going on? " Like, I couldn't see everything, but what was that about? Would that increase your credence a bit? — I am not sure that it would. No. Maybe I should have picked a better witness there to be able to say. — No, I know. I love I wouldn't think that he was lying, but unless I thought it myself — that Well, just saying because you could worry like, oh, I saw something. Maybe my mind's playing tricks on me. Acts chapter 9's reference of Paul's testimony says it wasn't purely a subjective experience. His traveling companions saw a light. They saw something also. It's not purely mental. — By the reason I say this, this might convince me is because visions can be true. This is a big Dale Allison point, right? Like is we often think that like if something's visionary, it's therefore false. visions can be true. Maybe all of the appearances to the disciples were all visionary. Maybe when they went up the mountain, they saw a vision of Jesus. Maybe the 500 saw Jesus above them as the Greek may imply. Um I'm not going to die on that hill either. Um but — could have been above them on a hill. — It doesn't it Could have been more than 500 people and it was above them. Who knows? But what I want to say is that doesn't mean that it's false, right? It could be like a real vision. Real visions are supposed to happen in the gospels. you know, God warns Joseph in a dream in the infancy narrative and we're not told, we don't think that he was like mistaken just because it was a visionary experience. So that would be fine. So something like that. But historically speaking, I think that evidence of particular apostles firsthand, if we had firsthand testimony uh to experience of the bodily resurrected Christ and also good evidence that those apostles were persecuted and martyed for that particular belief, not just being a Christian, not just spreading the message of Christ, but specifically the belief in the resurrection, uh who were sort of persecuted for that reason. I think that would be great evidence. Don't know if that'd be enough to convince me, but I think I probably wouldn't want to do a debate like this on the matter because it would be incredibly difficult to defend against, I think. But we just don't have that kind of evidence. We have at best sort of secondhand account. We have firsthand accounts of visionary experiences or at best secondhand accounts of experiences which seem to be physical in one reading but seem maybe not to be on others. And that just isn't enough for me to place my faith and trust in Jesus of Nazareth, at least the post-resurrected Jesus of Nazareth. And Trent, I'm going to give you the final word. What in your mind is the kind of the strongest piece of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? — I think the strongest piece of evidence is the uniqueness of the proclamation itself that uh you would and N Wright talks about this in his book on Jesus that if the apostles merely said um I've seen Jesus in heaven, they might say of course he's in Abraham's bosom. He's with all the righteous waiting in heaven. No, I really felt his presence. Yeah, we feel them praying for us and interceding for us. uh that's not enough to proclaim this uh this fact this idea of bodily resurrection that was reserved for the escaton reserved for the end of the world uh for them to proclaim that boldly and uniquely I would say what there has to be something as not just his followers but also a persecutor who showed no signs of guilt or remorse but simply had this interaction with Jesus that other people were privy to. So not purely a mental interaction. I think all of that together we need to seek out what is the best explanation for that and that look they were either sincere or insincere. I don't think even though we've quibbled about the martyrdom stuff I think most critics do not believe insincere. They would go with sincere and then do we say okay sincere they did see something or they didn't see something. the fact that we have all this different evidence for not just individuals but groups cross-referencing it being able to check a tomb that is locatable nearby to see what happened to the body and finally and I would encourage Alex talk about this and maybe he'll dive deeper into it in an episode of his show or we'll talk about it um or he could have an academic on who specializes in this I think the Christian miracles that have gone on later in history including what I mentioned at the beginning of the show like the thou like look you're worried like well do we have first and look, we've got newspaper accounts of people at Fatima seeing not just seeing that, but saying their clothes miraculously dried, puddles dried up. We've got photographs of the apparition at Zatune. So, what worries me is like in some respects we do have that better firsthand photographic newspaper evidence of these supernatural things. My concern and I would I guess for any skeptic who is watching, I would say, look, you're looking for likely things. Be open-minded and ask yourself, look, what's more probable here? all supernatural accounts are false or at least one of them is true and if perhaps you shouldn't at least be a strict naturalist and then just follow the evidence from there. — Well Trent Horn, Alex Okconor, it's been such a rich discussion. Thank you so much for coming on Unbelievable. — Thanks Trent. Thanks for joining us in transphysical form. It's been fun. — Well, I'm glad these this group of people could attest that I'm here and it wasn't simply made up. Then we had [clears throat] a thorough historical investigation. — If anybody doubts that some of them are still alive, so just go and ask them even though you don't know who they are. — I'd stake my life on it that we had a good discussion and hopefully we'll have others in the future. — I hope so, too. — Definitely. Thank you.