Restore Edward Colston's Statue

I haven't written anything on this blog for some time, but I have been feeling so distressed over the last few weeks, watching my country completely lose its mind, that I felt I needed to express myself somehow. There's a lot I could talk about, but in this post let me focus on something which happened on 7th June, 2020: the statue of the 17th Century English merchant Edward Colston was toppled and thrown into Bristol Harbour by Black Lives Matter activists. 

A bit of background information first of all.  The statute was erected in 1895 to commemorate Colston's philanthropy. So, it has been there for 125 years.   He was an important figure in the history and of Bristol.  He used his wealth to support schools, hospitals, almshouses and churches.  Charitable foundations inspired by him still survive to this day.  There are many streets, landmarks and schools named after him, not to mention the Colston bun!  But he was also heavily involved in the slave trade.  Now, I am not going to pretend that that was anything other than what it was.   During his involvement with it, the Royal African Company is estimated to have transported around 84,000 African men, women and children, 19,000 of which died during the crossing, because of the horrific conditions they were kept in. 

Of course, this is an ugly stain upon the history of our nation and upon the character of Edward Colston specifically.    But that doesn't mean, and I think most people agree, that it's ok to topple his statue.  You don't get to destroy something just because you don't like it. The fact that they did this, and that the police just stood by and let them do it, is so deranged it beggars belief.  Honestly, it doesn't matter how much you dislike something, you have no right to do that.  

Where does it end?  There are plenty of historical figures connected with slavery.  Let me give you a few examples of other people connected with the Colston's company.  It was found by Charles II and his brother, the then future James II.  Are their statues going to be next?   English philosopher and physician John Locke, said to be the father of Liberalism, was an investor in the company. Although Locke did change his stance on slavery later on, but forgiveness isn't usually all that abundant from the extreme left, so maybe his book will get burned, who knows? And Samuel Peypes, the famous diarist, who gave us so much information about the great London plague of 1665 and the Great fire the following year.  Are we going to see a baying mob taking sledgehammers to his bust in Seething Lane next?  I am not really being facetious here.  It really wouldn't surprise me if all of those men were future targets, the mentality of the BLM protesters being as they appear to be. Absolutely no historical figure is safe, as the lists of other possible targets has made clear.

Edward Colston's statue needs to be put back up, at least in the first instance. A message needs to be sent to the mobsters that such acts of criminal vandalism are not acceptable and will not be tolerated..  If you move it to a museum straight away, the message it sends is that the way to achieve the removal of objectionable icons (or rather what they find objectionable) is to engage in this kind of behaviour.  We have already seen the cenotaph vandalised, Winston Churchill's statue in Trafalgar Square deface with graffiti calling him a racist and a hammer and sickle painted on the statue of Sir Robert Peel.  We should never reward such behaviour by capitulating, but unfortunately, that seems to be what everyone is doing at the moment.

Once Colston's statue is restored, then the people of Bristol could debate whether to keep it there.  What is to be done would be entirely a matter of their democratic will, but it would be my hope that they would vote to keep it in the city centre.  The idea of removing memorials to people because they had character traits that are distasteful to modern sensibilities seems absurd to me.  Edward Colston died in 1721, just over a hundred years before slavery was abolished in this country.   In Western modern societies, it is an obvious given that enslaving people is morally evil, and we struggle to comprehend how it could ever have been considered good.  But that is not how it was for most of human history.  In Colston's day, and for thousands of years prior, worldwide, the widespread belief was that it was part of the natural order.  This does not excuse people like Edward Colston, but to judge him by the standards of the 21st century is questionable at best.  Despite everything, the man had a social conscience.  The reason he was given a statue was because of the good he did for the city of Bristol and the positive impact he had upon it, not because he was a slaver.  The way people are going on, it is though his statue was put up specifically to glorify and celebrate the slave trade! 

History is history and should be presented warts and all.  Most of the time when we study history, we are not going to find heroes and villains; we are simply going to find people.  Flawed people, often living very different lives to you and I and holding to many values we would find objectionable today.  If you are going to take down statues and monuments to people who don't conform to 21st century,  politically correct morals, you are going to end up with nothing left before 2010.  This madness needs to stop, or historians hundreds of years from now will look back at early 21st century Britain and blush with embarrassment at how backward, simplistic and oversensitive we were.    

Some Real Extremists

Well, we really do have some extreme people in mainstream politics today.   No,  I am not talking about Nigel Farage.  I am talking about Jeremy Corbyn and members of his team.

Corbyn himself apparently still has sympathy for the attrocities of the IRA, defending his meetings with Sinn Fein weeks after they claimed to help the peace process in Northern Ireland.  He still favours a United Ireland.

Corbyn has also said he wants to re-write the school curriculum so that children are taught more about giw great Socialism has been and how terrible The British Empire was.  I think we should be teaching a balanced view of History in our schools, not left wing propaganda.

We have Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell who has said that Conservative MPs should be subject to "direct action" every time they step out in public and praised violence including the 2011 riots.  Back in 2011 he praised rioters because they "kicked the shit out of" Conservative Party headquarters in Millbank Tower in Westminster. 

Andrew Fischer, spoke with pride of "bursting through police lines in a protest about tuition fees back in 2010 and gleefully recalled how "hundreds of people were enjoying the role reversal of police being penned in and scared".

So, harrassment and violence rather than reasoned argument is the way to go apparently.

What I find the most utterly amazing was Corbyn and McDonnell's defense of student Ed Woollard, who received 32 months in prison for throwing a fire extinguisher at police from a seventh floor roof during the Tuition fee protests!

McDonnell said:

"That kid didn't deserve 36 months.  Actually, he's not the criminal.  The real criminals are the ones that are cutting the education services and increasing the fees... We've got to encourage direct action in any form it can possibly take".

Now, any sensible party leader would rebuke a stupid comment like that.  Not Mr Corbyn.  He defended McDonnell's defending of Woollard!  He told BBC1's Andrew Marr show that throwing the fire extinguisher was "a stupid and absolutely wrong thing to do" but added "I think the sentence he got was possibly disproportionate to the crime that he committed".

What?!  Is Mr Corbyn serious?  That kid could very easily have killed someone!  It was only by the grace of God that the object he threw didn't strike someone on the head. A charge of attempted murder wouldn't have been unreasonable in those circumstances in my view. 

I stand by what I said last week.  People should be allowed to speak their minds without the threat of censorship.  The most important reason is that it safeguards everyone elses' right to free speech, but it is also so we can be very clear about what people are really about.  The fact is we have some key Labour Party members who are real left wing extremist nasties. We should allow them to keep spewing their hateful stuff so we can see exactly what the Labour Party has become.  That way the British people will know never to vote Labour ever again!

Second Response to an Unbelievable Sceptic

I have finally got round to responding to Simon Humprehey's reply to my last post towards him.  Life has been a bit busy, but here it is better late than never.  What Simon offers this time is somewhat repetitive, so I will just respond to the main points. 

Simon said this:

"But a balanced approach needs to consider things like a person walking on water as well, doesn't it? And that doesn't even come close to a ring of truth. If anything, it has the ring of fiction, if not outright fantasy."

To be honest, I am not really sure what I can say to that other than to point out that Simon's only reason for doubting the gospel accounts seems to be a presupposition against miracles.  His worldview does not allow for the possibility of God acting within His creation, and due to his presupposition, he concludes that the gospel accounts are to be disbelieved (or at least severely doubted).  What he does not do however is provide any justification for his naturalism.  He just assumes it.

Simon said:

"How about the gospel description of dozens of corpses coming alive, climbing out of their graves, and returning to their families? If you read a report of that happening today in Christchurch NZ (where I am), would that have the ring of truth to you? Would your immediate reaction be "yeah, that sounds like it's true, why wouldn't I believe it"? Or not?"

I don't know of any sensible Christian who would have "yeah, that sounds like it's true, why wouldn't I believe it"? as their immediate reaction.  I certainly have never advocated immediately jumping the conclusion that a miracles has happened.  I would make the following points:

(i) I would certainly agree that we should have a healthy sceptism towards such claims.  Miracles are afterall, special and very rare events.  They would not be miracles otherwise.  We should always seek to find natural, ordinary explanations first and only make the case for a Divine miracle once those are ruled out.  The reason being that most of the time, such explanations account for what takes place in our universe.  That is the logical process through which evidentialist apologists argue for the resurrection of Jesus.  They examine all of the other possible explanations for the empty tomb (the disciples stole the body, the women went to the wrong tomb, swoon theory etc) and show they are not credible, as well as making the positive case for the resurrection actually happening.

(ii) Obviously, there are a number of questions you would need to ask about the kind of event Simon describes.  Who is making the claim?  Is it someone serious who has demonstrated themselves to be reliable or is it some whacky conspiracy theorist who is known for making wild claims that usually turn out to be bogus?  Do they have anything to gain?  Do they have anything to lose?  Are there multiple witnesses that can attest to this or is it just one person or a few people saying this stuff?

(iii) For my third point I would like to direct the reader to the transcript of a conversation between William Lane Craig and Kevin Harris over at Reasonablefaith.org.

When Is It Rational to Believe in Miracles?

In particular, I would like to draw the reader's attention to what Craig says about the religio-historical context of a miracle claim.  Craig put it this way:

"So, for example, the events in the life of Jesus, like feeding the five thousand, walking on the water, his resurrection from the dead are, I think, very plausibly miraculous events when given the significant religio-historical context in which they occurred.  Jesus' own radical personal claims and ministry make it, I think, very plausible that these are miracles. In fact, I have to say I can't think of a single skeptic or critic who says, “Yes, I think that Jesus really did rise from the dead but this was just a purely natural event.” Given the nature of the resurrection and the religio-historical context in which it occurs, I think it is very plausible that if the resurrection happened it was probably a miracle."

The claims of the resurrection of Jesus and the other miracles attributed to Him are placed in the context of someone who operated within a theistic worldview, and who claimed to come in the name of the God of Israel.  We are not just talking about some random miracle claim involving some bloke down the street, to whom there is no religio-historical context attached.  We are talking about someone who made bold claims about who He was and what He would do, and then seemed to bring them about.  If Simon's scenario had such religio-historical context, it would add to the plausibility of the claim.

Simon said:

"I claimed that there is not one mention of any of the incredible things Jesus is supposed to have done, mentioned by any commentator at the time."

This has already been answered.  I point out again that he is ignoring the gospel accounts even though there is (as I pointed out previously) good reason to believe that they were written by eye witnesses or those with access to eye witnesses.  He is ignoring Paul's epistles even though they are believed to be very early (16 - 20 years after the Earthly life of Jesus), as well as people like Tacitus and Josephus (although he discounts them because they were not contemporary).  Apart from that, I gave three reasons why you would not expect to find anything more than what we have attesting to Jesus (see my response to Question 6 in my previous post).  Just repeating back the same point after it has been dealt with is not overly impressive.

The reader may recall that in my last post I asked Simon about a hypothetical scenario where there was a major volcanic eruption in the First Century.  I asked him how many written accounts he would expect there to be of such an event.  In the "Unbelievable Facebook" group Simon said:

"Something tells me this is not a hypothetical eruption. But yes, I would expect that I wouldn't have to wait until the following century to hear about it in the historical record."

Simon is of course correct that I had a real event in mind.  I was of course thinking of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD.  This major first century disaster would have been witnessed by as many a quarter million people.  At least 1600 people would have been killed, two major towns Pompeii and Herculaneum were completely destroyed.  The eruption of Vesuvius obviously was far more significant in the eyes of Rome than stories of some (in their eyes) low class Jewish peasant supposedly performing miracles.  Yet, how many written accounts do we have of this event?  One.  Yes, just one account written thirty years later by Pliny the Younger, whose uncle Pliny the Elder died in the eruption.  If Pliny the Elder had not died in the eruption, his young newphew may very well have not seen fit to write about this event, in which case we would have had no written account of it at all. 

The point I am making should be obvious.  It simply doesn't follow that we would have a truck load of references to amazing and spectacular events from the ancient world.  As I pointed out last time, people like Tacticus and Pliny the Younger were not modern day tabloid journalists.  They did not write about stuff because it was exciting or amazing.  They wrote about things they considered useful or valuable to their readers.  The idea that we should have loads of written accounts about Jesus because he did such amazing stuff is a really bad argument and the lack of written material attesting to the 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius makes this clear.

Simon said:

"What do you do? Refer to things that were not written at the time. Hell, you refer to commentators that weren't even born at the time!  Written at the time doesn't mean written decades later, or some time in the next century. You cite Tacitus. Come on. He began his writing in 97 and did most of it in the first couple of decades of the 2nd century."

Where does Simon get this idea that in order for something to be accepted as historically reliable, the person reporting it had to be contemporary?  Can he point to any real historians who operate like this? Because as far as I can see, you would have to throw out much of ancient history if you were to be consistent in applying this principle. Much of what we know about people of the past comes from second hand accounts, written by people who were not around at the time. 

To illustrate this point, I would like to draw the reader's attention to the antics of the so called Rational Response Squad back in 2006.  Back then they issued a challenge:

"We are offering a $100 reward and an appearance on our radio show where we will admit we we're wrong to the person who can set a precedent that other important historical figures exist without contemporary evidence. Provide us with the names of five important historical figures that were not written about until at least 25 years after they died (like Jesus)."

Big mistake.  The responses were overwelming.  At this point I am going to link a page written by someone who responded to the Rational Responders who provided a good many examples of historical figures who are only known due to the writings of non-contemporary persons:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.co.uk/2006/07/foolishness-from-rational-responders.html

I'll add one of my own.  I will add Boudica, queen of the British Iceni tribe who led an uprising against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire in 60 or 61 AD.  Most of what we know about her comes from Tacitus who as Simon noted was not born until 97 AD and didn't start writing until a few decades later.  It is believed that his father-in-law Gnaeus Julius Agrocola provided him with an eyewitness account of Boudica's revolt, but Tacitus himself was not around at the time.  If we were to follow Simon's reasons we would throw all of information about Boudica out, but historians don't seem to want to do that.

It is quite amazing that we have the references to Jesus that we do have in light of what has been discussed.  The only real reason for questioning the miracle claims of Jesus by Simon appears to be a presupposition against miracles which has not itself been justified.  There is in fact good reason to believe in the Christian faith.

I support Jeremy Corbyn's Freedom of Conscience

A few days ago the new Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn caused something of a stir when he chose not to sing the UK National Anthem at a Battle of Britain remembrance ceremony at St Paul’s Cathedral. The guy is a staunch republican you see, as well as an atheist, so he wouldn't really be in favour of singing "God save the Queen".  I made a comment about it on my Facebook page and I know this is a bit late but here are my thoughts on the matter. 

I have never been in favour of someone being forced or put under pressure to violate his or her conscience. I personally think it is sad that Jeremy Corbyn is an atheist republican, but if he truly does think that, it would be hypocritical for him to sing the national anthem, which is all about God saving a monarch.  Anyone opposing his right to freedom of conscience in this matter is undermining their own right to the same. To me it's a no brainer, so I was quite a bit dismayed that so many people (including Simon Danczuk MP) were taking him to task over it. I don't like his view either.  Come to that, I couldn't be more diametrically opposed to Mr Corbyn politically, but we can't have freedom of expression only for people we agree with!

Answering an Unbelievable Sceptic

Well, I started this blog many years ago and never kept it up.  I decided to resurrect it.  I don't know how often I will post on here, but I think I will do it at least occasionally. 

Today I want to answer some questions from a sceptic of Christianity from the Unbelievable Facebook group (the group associated with the Christian broadcast Unbelievable).  Mr Simon Humphrey.  Simon Humphrey asked some questions relating the historical evidence for Jesus. I tried to reply in group, but it wouldn't take it (too long maybe).  So I thought I would put my reply here, and put a link to it in the group.  Here goes.

1. "Do you agree that writers in those times felt free to fabricate contents of speeches, even events, if they served the account they were writing? Indeed, that they were taught how to do this?"

It's possible, but as I understand it historians don't just make such accusations unless there is reason to believe that a particular writer did that. As far as the gospels go though there are quite a few things that give them a ring of truth. For example, the gospels report that the women followers of Jesus were the first people Jesus appeared to, which wouldn't lend them credibility in the rather sexist culture they were written in.

Oh and just the fact that they were proclaiming belief in a resurrected crucified Messiah is just not something anyone would seriously consider making up, given that crucifixion was such a dishonourable way for someone to die. Don't forget of course that Greek culture also looked on the idea of resurrection as offensive and absurd. No one would have anything to gain by making up a story like that. They could expect to be shunned by Greek and Jew alike.

2. "Do you agree that we have written works where mythological characters were set within historical contexts, as if they had actually lived?"

Yes, but the Gospels are written in the style of ancient biography which was meant to be read as factual. See this article for details:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospelbioi.php

3. Do you agree that we don't know who wrote any of the gospels, let alone whether they suffered?

"No I don't agree. There are some very good reasons for thinking that the Gospels are written by who they have been said to have been written by."

Matthew:- There was a very strong early church tradition that attributed the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew the tax collector. Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius and Jerome all attribute it to this Matthew. The author of Matthew uses technical monetary language not found in Luke and Mark. That is something you would expect if the author were a tax collector. Based on information in the gospels, Matthew is also known as Levi suggesting that he was by ancestry of the priestly tribe of Levi. Someone like that would have proper Jewish religious training and we traces of this in how he deals with the Old Testament and Jewish issues.

Mark:- Always was said to the interpreter of Peter (Peter's scribe). Testified as such by Papias, Clement of Alexandria, Tetullian, Irenaeus, Eusebius and Jerome. As would be expected Peter stands out as the main character after Jesus. It has the most limited vocabulary, seeming to be written in common Koine Greek reflecting someone without much formal education. That would fit Peter (no disrespect).

Luke-Acts:- Luke the Doctor, attributed as the author by Clement of Alexandria, Tetullian, Irenaeus, Origin Eusebius, Jerome. It seems to be written by a well educated and cultured person, which you would expect if Luke were the author. His Greek is excellent, the best of all the Gospel writers. To have the time and resources to write a two volume account at least points to someone fairly wealthy. The author is noted for sensitivity and empathy which you would expect from a doctor.

Evidence of a connection to the Apostle Paul is evidenced by the abrupt ending of Acts with Paul awaiting trial in Rome (62 AD). If Luke-Acts were written after this date we would expect there to be some references to Paul's execution given that the author documented the stoning of Stephen and James the brother of John.

John:- Good reasons exist for thinking the Apostle John wrote it. The author is very accurate when it comes to the local Geography, Jewish customs and Jewish sects prior to AD 70, halakhic forms of law and Samaritan forms of thought. John's gospel also omits several episodes found in the Synoptics where John played a role. This would have been in line with a principle of honour present at the time that you shouldn't give yourself too much attention.

As for them suffering, it's a popular apologetic argument to bring up the alledged martyrdom of the apostles, but it is not as well established historically as people like to make out. A better argument is to point out that anyone preaching a crucified and risen saviour would lose their kinship and the honour that went with it. That was considered worse than dying in that time and culture and is therefore not something they would give up for something they knew to be a lie.

4. "Do you agree that many people back then were very gullible, e.g. thinking that a couple of guys were gods merely because one of them survived a snakebite?"

There is nothing to suggest that ancient people were in any sense more gullible than anyone today and only smug, modern day Western bigots would suggest that they were. As a friend of mine retorted, they had people who thought guys who survived snakebite were gods and we have 9/11 truthers and people who think the moon landings were faked.

5. "Do you agree that a common religious motif at the time included the idea of someone dying and then rising from the dead, and that believers could gain spiritual benefits from that through various mystery rites, such as baptism? There were messiahs running around all over the place, and heaps of competing mystery cults that gained many followers, some lasting centuries."

Does Simon have any evidence that any such concepts were present in First Century Judaism? Judaism had a concept of a future resurrection at the end of the age, but not of any resurrections before that time. The dominant Messianic expectation at the time was that the long awaited Messiah would come as a military leader who would defeat the Romans and usher in a time of peace. The idea that the Messiah would be killed was inconceivable. A dead Messiah was a false Messiah as far as the thinking at the time was concerned. Add in that the Messiah would be crucified and you would have something so obscene and offensive that any right-minded Jew would faint from shock! This is why Christianity would never have got off the ground if there had not been something very tangible behind it.

The background of Christianity is First Century Judaism, not mystery cults. Jews in the First Century AD absolutely despised those religions.

6. "Do you agree that there is not even one mention of any of the incredible things Jesus was supposed to have done, written at the time? He turned all of Jerusalem upside down... and Jerusalem didn't notice?"

I love it when people ask me stuff like this. When Simon says "not one mention" he does of course exclude the Gospel accounts as though they somehow don't count, and ignore the fact there are references to Jesus in Josephus, Tacitus and the Jewish Talmud.  However, leaving this aside, there really is no reason to expect to find all that many written references to Jesus for the following reasons:

(i) First Century Israel was a predominately oral culture, not a written one. Teachings were more often passed on orally since no more than 10% of the population could read or write (and that's a generous estimate).

(ii) Roman and Jewish writers had their own prejudices and presuppositions just as modern atheists do today. Very few of them would have seen fit to write about the alledged miracles of (in their eyes) a low class Jewish peasant from some horrible, trashy place like Judea, especially when they were told that the guy got himself hanged on a tree!

(iii) Historians of the day were not modern Western tabloid journalists. They didn't report things because it was entertaining or exciting. They passed on things that they thought were useful and valuable to their readers.

7. "Do you agree that there were some commentators at the time who recorded natural events such as earthquakes and eclipses? And that not one of them recorded the alleged events written about in the gospels?"

This question is pretty much related the previous one and therefore I think I have already answered it sufficiently. I would however like to ask Simon to ponder something now:

Simon, I want you to imagine that during the First Century there was a huge volcano which erupted somewhere in the Roman world. This eruption was a major disaster. Two well known Roman towns were completely destroyed and over 1500 people horribly died, including some prominent people. Certainly it was an event that quite dramatically and immediately impacted Rome far more than some Jewish miracle worker in Judea. How much written material would you expect to find detailing such an event?

"Do you agree that if we were to place the above facts on a scale that measured historical reliability, it would indicate "not reliable"?"

Only if we are very misinformed, as Simon appears to be.

Unite Against Facism Protest BNP Leader's Question Time Appearance

I have been watching news coverage of protests outside the BBC television centre were David Dimbleby's "Question Time" was to be aired. Question Time is a discussion programme involving a panal of politicans and celebrities as well as a studio audience who can ask questions. I have often watched Question Time with interest and enjoyment. It is an opportunity for ordinary people to put politicians on the spot and challenge them. In the run up to the 2005 general election the leader of the three major parties came on one at a time to be grilled.

Last night's edition of Question Time was quite controversial, as the panal included British National Party leader, Nick Griffin. He leads a far-right, whites-only political party here in the United Kingdom. The BNP formed as a splinter group of the British National Front by John Tyndall in 1982. They are a slimy, racist bunch but have recently won favour by raising some legimate concerns, such as the issue of illegal immigration.



A large mob comprised of members of Unite Against Facism struggled with police outside the BBC Television centre in an attempt to enter the building. They opposed the appearance of Nick Griffin on Question Time believing that it was wrong to give him a platform. This group began in 2003 as a coalition that included the Anti-Nazi League, the National Assembly Against Racism, the Trades Union Congress. They have supporters from all the major parties, including, surprisingly, Conservative Party leader David Cameron.



In my last year at university I encountered The Anti-Nazi League, one of the groups which founded UAF. I tagged along on some of their protests and attended some of their gatherings to see what they were about. They likewise worked to impose censorship by banning the BNP from voicing their opinions. "No platform for Nazis" was one of their slogans.



Now, I have no love for the BNP. They are a bunch of racist thugs, but in many ways these far left groups are just as much a threat to our democratic society in my opinion. How hypocritical to protest facism by trying to deny someone's freedom of speech. It also puts everyone's freedom to speak their mind at risk, for who is to stop someone else trying to take away other people's freedom to speak their mind if their views are deemed unpopular? Who is to decide what is and what is not acceptable? Mob rule? I am also quite astounded and disgusted that members of the mainstream parties would give any support to the antics of people like that.



The way to combat groups like the BNP is not to try to silence them, but to refute them. They should be engaged in debate and exposed for what they are. That was the aim of last night's edition of Question Time, and I think it was largely successful. Don't silence people, refute them. That is the way of a democratic society.

A KabanetheChristian Classic

I just want to see if it is possible to post youtube videos on here. I think it should be. I thought I would post a video by a young friend of mine. KabanetheChristian or, Tommy. He's a very bright young man from Virginia. He's been a bit of a bad boy by converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, but he is still one of my favourite youtubers:). He has some excellent videos defending the resurrection of Jesus and refuting the Jesus Myth (the belief that Jesus never existed as an historical figure. The video below is a classic. Part of me does have issues with the way he presents himself (quite sarcastic and mocking of Jesus Mythcism), but I could not help but be entertained when I saw this last year for the first time. He demonstrates the silliness of the mythcists.