All Episodes
Previous Next
March 2, 2024 - The Michael Knowles Show
20:58
Bill Maher & Chris Distefano Jesus DEBATE

Michael Knowles reacts to the exchange between Bill Maher and Chris Distefano on the historical and religious significance of Jesus Christ. Who won? Find out!

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Who cares if Jesus lived?
It's whether he's then died and was reborn and is, you know, up in heaven with his father who's really him.
Factual evidence that he existed is kind of overwhelming.
The factual evidence that he existed has always been underwhelming.
If I told you factual evidence about Alexander the Great, you would believe me.
I can't go there with you.
It's just, you know, it's silly.
My producers tell me that Bill Maher and Chris DeStefano have just had a major debate on the nature of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is from the Club Random podcast, not usually the place you turn to for theology, but maybe we found it.
So, Mr. Maher, Mr. DeStefano, take it away.
I believe in Jesus, by the way.
We'll talk about that.
Oh.
I'm reading A Case for Christ by Lee Straubel.
It's convincing evidence.
What do you think?
I throw people out of the club here?
We believe in whatever you want.
I didn't.
I went to Catholic school my whole life, but after reading this book, A Case for Christ by Lee Straubel, the factual evidence that he existed is kind of overwhelming.
I'd like to see that because the factual evidence that he existed has always been underwhelming.
Hold on, put a pause here.
So they're not just arguing.
Over the nature of Christ, they're arguing over his existence?
Seriously?
That is unfortunate, because I think the evidence for his divinity is quite clear, but I didn't think anyone really argued seriously that Jesus never existed.
He's attested to Everywhere!
You have histories written of him within living memory, many of them from Christian and non-Christian sources.
The historical events laid out in the New Testament are well attested to.
The people referenced are well-attested to, including obviously non-Christian Roman and Jewish people.
It's just so... I don't even know how to engage with that.
Okay, keep going.
In fact, it's... Read A Case for Christ.
Give it a shot by Lee Strobel.
This is based on what?
Archaeological finds?
Archaeological finds.
New ones?
Theological finds.
What are theological finds?
Bill, ready for this?
Yeah.
If I told you factual evidence about Alexander the Great, You would believe me.
Okay, but even still, it's a silly point because who cares if Jesus lived?
It's whether he's then died and was reborn and is, you know, up in heaven with his father who's really him.
That's the part where the rubber— Put a pause there.
Okay, so I guess Bill Maher is conceding the point, basically.
Or he is at least pointing out, well, yeah, it doesn't matter if there's a guy named Jesus, just a random guy named Jesus.
That's not—the question is, is he who he says he is?
So, I think wisely moves off of this very silly argument he's making that the man never lived, and we've got pretty irrefutable evidence that the man lived.
So, okay, he moves on and he says, well, is Jesus the Christ?
You know, is he the Son of God?
Keep going.
That's the part where the rubber meets the road.
Maybe he existed.
I agree.
That's absolutely possible.
He may have existed.
But according to Case for Christ, independent sources who didn't know each other, who wrote about him within 20 years of his death, talked about these miracles happening as in real time.
Okay, well, again... And Alexander the Great's biographers, the earliest one, was like 100 years after he died.
Chris, I'm going to have to burst your bubble now, because I have to spit a couple of facts at you that are kind of... Spit mine out.
It's Hollywood.
There's only two sources in the Bible.
There's the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Put a pause here.
He goes, there's only two sources in the Bible.
There's the four Gospels.
Well, hold on.
Wait.
I think to the liberals and the atheists, sometimes one plus one equals four.
Okay, so the two he just named are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Keep going.
There's also another guy, Josephus, who wasn't accepted, but read the case for Christ.
Not in the Bible.
The Bible is itself an anthology.
They found some few decades ago the Dead Sea Scroll.
Hold on.
Is Bill Maher excluding St.
Paul?
He's counting the Gospels, but he's excluding St.
Paul, he's excluding James, he's excluding Peter, he's excluding... He seems to be excluding a lot of the New Testament, to say nothing, obviously, of the Old Testament.
Keep going.
They found some few decades ago the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were other books that were just basically edited out.
So right away we know a person decided what constituted the Bible and just some stuff wound up on the cutting room floor.
We do know who established the canon of the Bible, but it wasn't a person.
This isn't like a secret.
You know, this isn't like, you have your opinion, and I have my opinion, and who knows?
We know of the church councils, and we know that the church in council codified the canon of the Bible, and we know the books that were included, we know the books that were excluded, and we actually know why the books that were excluded were excluded, and we can date to a pretty Near a narrow margin of time when those books were written.
And by the way, if you've ever read some of the books that were excluded from the canon of the Bible, the conclusion you will have is not that the church father, well not one person, I don't know what Bill Maher is talking about, but not that the church fathers and the bishops were trying to pull one over on us, but you will recognize their wisdom because the books that were excluded, by and large, were totally kooky and came much later and were illogical and not credible.
Next one.
And just some stuff wound up on the cutting room floor.
I get it.
Council of Nicaea.
I get it.
Council of Nicaea, yes.
325 A.D.
That's when they decided the Christian religion.
I agree with you.
I'm with you on that.
So there are a lot of councils that decided a lot of questions.
A driving reason for a council is to establish the truth of a matter that is in dispute.
So there are councils that debate and come to conclusions on the nature of Christ, councils that come to conclusions on the nature of the canon, I don't think that's quite what he meant to say, but if he did say it, that's not as accurate.
I'm with you on that.
I remember that.
But I'm telling you, read this book.
That's Emperor Constantine.
or something.
I don't think that's quite what he meant to say, but if he did say it, that's not as accurate.
I'm with you on that.
I remember that.
But I'm telling you, read this book.
That's Emperor Constantine.
Shout out Constantine.
Turkey, all that.
Well, the first one.
Well, yes, the first one to change the Roman Empire to a Christian Empire.
They decided- So, that's not true either, actually.
The Edict of Milan allows for toleration of Christianity, but it doesn't formally make Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire.
And Constantine's great, though.
Love Constantine.
Keep going.
To a Christian empire.
They decided all the holidays.
Took three centuries.
I get it.
And listen, Bill, I'm with you on that.
But here's the important point.
Let's do it.
There's only these five sources.
A little bit more tequila, that's it.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
I'm wrecked right now.
Put a pause there.
Again, there are more, because there are the epistles and there's St.
Paul, obviously, who wrote so much of the New Testament.
Keep going.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Good boys.
Not contemporaries of Jesus.
Not even close.
Put a pause there.
Do you know who Matthew is?
Part of the historical critical school.
That was so influential in the 19th century was to say that none of the people who supposedly wrote the Gospels and the Epistles are actually the people.
Because sometimes you do get pseudonymous writing, you know, writing where they purport to be one person but they're not really that person.
But it seems reasonable to me to attribute the Gospels to the people who purportedly wrote them.
And even if we're not talking about People who had a particularly close terrestrial relationship with our Lord.
Let's say in the case of Luke.
It's not like we just, these guys fell out of the sky.
We can trace their lineage.
We know who they spoke with.
We know the lineage, even of the, forget about the...
New Testament for a moment.
Just even the early Church Fathers, you know, the Saints who were disciples of this guy, were disciples of that guy, who go back, you know, we can trace these things.
I mean, this is one of the amazing things about the Catholic Church, which to me is a sign of its divine institution, is that you can trace the bishops like all the way back.
They go right back to Peter and you can trace them With considerable clarity.
Keep going.
So, they lived from 70 to 110 years after him.
I understand.
No, no, no.
From 40 to 70 years.
But they got their information from Joseph.
Put a pause there.
Bill Maher is saying that because, you know, we have evidence That the Gospels were written more like 30 to 80 years after the Resurrection.
That these people lived 30 to 80 or 100 years after the Resurrection.
That isn't true.
It would have been written and presumably these people weren't just born and then started writing.
And frankly, it could have been written even earlier.
I mean, you see like in the case, we're talking about the spread of Christianity here in the Empire.
You see Christianity arrive in Armenia seven years after the crucifixion, and two apostles die there, which is how Armenia came to be converted to a Christian country even before the Edict of Constantine, already referenced.
Okay, keep going.
They got their information from Josephus, who lived about 10 years after Jesus.
So already we're into a game of telephone.
Put a pause there.
Already into a game of telephone?
What are you talking about, man?
I love that DeStefano here is referencing the historian Josephus, who obviously is not a Christian source, he's not in the Bible.
This is a game of telephone.
I don't know, if I wrote a book today, About the election of Barack Obama in 2008.
Do you think I would have some credibility on that?
Do you think my memory would be clear enough?
Because that was 16 years ago.
Bill Maher is saying, well, 10 years after the event, you know, it's just a total game of telephone.
Who could possibly remember?
Are you kidding me, dude?
we're talking about 2014.
It's not, it's not, 10 years is not that long.
on.
Keep going.
Bill, yes, but I want to make you let you make a point, but let me just quickly, the game of telephone, yes, I agree with you that point, but the game of telephone in Jesus's times, according to Lee Strobel in the case of Christ, was the simple fact of we're playing the game of telephone.
There's 10 people here.
The game of telephone, as we know it today, is you say something in my ear, and then it goes around 10 times, and by the time it gets to you, it's something radically different.
This game of telephone, this ancient game of telephone was, but you tell it to me, Then the third guy confirms what you said before it goes to the fourth guy's So there's a level of checking, of checks and balances.
Chris, Chris, you're working too hard.
If you want to believe this, believe it.
You don't have to convince me or... I'm just going to pause here.
This is a total surrender from Bill Maher.
He's got really nothing to say here.
He says, hey!
He plays this apathetic character.
Bro, what do I care?
What are you trying to persuade me of something for?
I don't know, man, because we're having a conversation?
I don't know, because we're on a talk show?
Don't you usually try to persuade people of things and we come to conclusions?
But Bill Maher is totally lost at this point.
He's got nothing.
And he realizes that DeStefano is sharper on this issue and has more information on this issue than he does.
So then he plays this apathetic game.
Bro, why do you care so much?
I don't know, Bill, because we're having a conversation, and you seem to disagree with me, and so we're trying to figure out whose view is right.
Also, because you're a human being, and I care for you, and I think it would be better for you to believe true things rather than false things.
Okay, man, whatever.
I don't know why this guy's trying to talk on a talk show.
Keep going.
You don't have to convince me or construct this scaffolding to which you hang this belief.
Just believe it.
It's all good.
Don't come to me and when you die at St.
Peter's, I'm not getting you in.
But, you know, I can't go there with you.
It's just, you know, it's silly.
Well, I'm just saying it's nice the idea to believe in something.
I'm just trying.
Trying it on for size.
Here's also what's very interesting.
And then I'll leave this subject.
Excuse me.
I think I've bored the audience with this before, but... What do you think Barber in Milwaukee gives a f... They turned this off when they found out I wasn't Ellen.
Yeah, like that's the kind of audience we have.
Your audience is great.
You think they'll like me?
St.
Paul.
Good guy, St.
Paul.
A.K.A.
Saul.
So he finally remembers St.
Paul?
He forgets the guy who writes most of the New Testament.
He says there's only four sources in the New Testament.
Only two sources, and there are four evangelists.
But now he remembers St.
Paul.
Okay, keep going.
Good guy, St.
Paul.
A.K.A.
Saul, and the capital of Minnesota.
Is the other source of the Bible.
Yes.
There's Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.
I said the two names out of order because that's the order in the Bible.
The first Gospel, Mark, is 70 AD.
Jesus dies in 33.
So that's 40 years almost after he died.
Okay.
So not contemporaries.
Paul comes before the Gospel writers.
He's writing around the year 50, in the 50s.
Okay.
So he's much closer to Jesus' time.
So you'd think he would know more about Jesus than the people who came later, but actually… Hold on, hold on.
I mean, St.
Paul meets Christ after the crucifixion and the resurrection, famously on the road to Damascus, knocked off a horse.
So, he is an apostle, you know, the last of the apostles, but he's not an apostle in the same way that the other apostles were, who actually spent time with him, or the disciples of those apostles who had firsthand accounts of our Lord's sojourn on earth before the crucifixion and the resurrection.
But actually, St.
Paul knows almost nothing about Jesus.
He barely conceives of him as a person who lived on earth.
There's no details about his life like they are in the Gospels.
Right, because he met him after the crucifixion and the resurrection.
It's a totally different, not a totally different experience, because it's one God and one Christ.
It's a rather different experience from the experience of the Apostles, and so you might even take Bill's logic here and apply it to the Gospels.
Why do we have four different Gospels?
These are people who all spent roughly the same amount of time with the man, and so why do we get four different perspectives?
It tells us something about the person of Christ, and it tells us something about us and our relationship to God.
So then why does Christ knock Saul off the horse on the road to Damascus?
We get another perspective there.
We get now, first of all, an apostle to the Gentiles, but we also get a new perspective of our Lord after he's taken on his glorified body, after the resurrection, and a very valuable perspective.
Obviously, something rather important to the whole New Testament.
But if he's saying, well, why do we have these different perspectives?
Well, then rewind and ask yourself, why do we have three synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John?
Why do we have four Gospels, period?
Is it possible that those different perspectives add something to our understanding of our Lord?
Even the way Bill talks, he says he conceived of Christ.
Well, okay, that's assuming that an atheist view.
That's assuming the non-Christian view.
Because the way I would say it is Christ knocked Saul off a horse.
That it wasn't Paul just having a daydream of what Jesus might have been like, but that our Lord is a real person who really appeared to him.
That he really was resurrected on the third day and then sojourned on earth for another 40 days and then ascended into heaven in a suit at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
The conception thing here, okay, if you're beginning with the premise that Christianity is bogus, I guess I can see how Bill could arrive at some of these views.
But if you're not, if you keep even a slightly open mind that it might be real, I think it probably explains more the actions of St.
Paul and the other apostles.
Keep going.
So the people who came later know more than the person who wrote earlier.
Just some food for thought.
But, okay, I understand.
But he does acknowledge at some point, right, Paul, aka Saul, knows that Jesus existed, right?
He talks about him.
He talks about, I'm saying he conceives him as a godhead.
He doesn't have this, it's not the narrative that's in the Gospels of Jesus, Went around and he did miracles and he did stuff and everybody loved him.
Okay, but give it a pause here.
Yeah, right.
It's a different narrative from a man's different experience and point of view.
But even among the Gospels, you have the three synoptics are rather different from the Gospel according to St.
John.
I mean, the Gospel according to St.
John opens up, in the beginning was the Word, the Logos, and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God.
That's a rather different perspective than beginning just with the human genealogy of Christ.
Even the different genealogies tell you something, give you a new perspective on the man.
But Christ has two natures in a hypostatic union.
He's fully God and fully man.
You say, well, you know, the Gospel of John opens up in this really heady way, just speaking of God and the nature of the relation of God to the divine logic of the universe.
And yeah, right, of course, man.
Yeah, in the epistles of Paul, Add another layer of perspective to that as well.
Yeah, of course.
The books of the New Testament are not Xerox copies of each other.
Keep going.
It's tough, and everybody loves him, and he gets quoted a lot.
He makes speeches.
Blessed are the meek.
You know, he has adventures.
He goes into the desert.
It's a whole thing.
And then at the end, it's a whole drama with, you know...
Yeah, put a pause there.
Right, isn't that an argument that it's real?
I mean, Bill's argument here is these people just wanted to write a story, and an argument against it is that their stories are different.
But this would be like Chesterton's argument for the reality of, even Tim Keller made this argument, the late Protestant preacher, that it reads like journalism.
You know, the Gospels read like journalism, and so they differ in certain little tiny details because of different perspectives.
But St.
Paul isn't setting out to write a great work of fiction.
He's writing of his experience, and his experience was different than the experience of the Apostles.
The other Apostles.
Keep going.
Paul doesn't know any of this, all the stuff that the Gospel writers obsess about.
Paul certainly knows about the Crucifixion and writes about it.
Keep going.
It's a little strange.
But maybe, but Paul, it's okay for Paul to be somebody who maybe, there was a lot of people who didn't like Jesus.
You know what's okay?
And that's okay.
What's okay is that some people believe and other people don't.
That's what's okay.
It's like, that's you.
Yeah.
I'm not trying to put it on you, I'm just saying what I believe in.
I know, I know.
I'm wearing a corduroy shirt my mother got me for Christmas and I feel confident.
Is that really?
Your mother got you that?
Yes.
You ever been to Japan?
No.
Should we go?
No.
Alright, enough about Japan.
I don't care about Japan.
You know, I like Bill Maher.
There's something about him I like.
He's just so wrong, and when he senses that he's starting to lose, he just kind of falls into apathy.
It's funny because he seems to consider His sparring partner is the one who's closed-minded and stubborn and not going to change his mind.
But it's really Bill, in the end, who comes out and he just gives up.
And he says, okay, well, enough of your evidence, enough of your arguments.
I'm just not going to change my mind.
You believe what you believe.
I believe what I believe.
It's okay.
Who cares?
Why do you care?
He gives up on that.
I mean, that's obstinacy.
You can't get over it.
▲
Export Selection