Gary Habermas vs Kenneth Humphreys


A few weeks ago, Christian apologist Gary Habermas debated atheist Kenneth Humphrey on the resurection of Jesus of Nazareth. The debate is now available on-line here:

I think it is worth the time to watch/listen to this debate. Habermas is one of the leading experts in the world on the resurrection while Humphrey is very influential in the skeptical community.

The mp3 is available here:


<< The mp3 is available here: >>

Thanks much! Another one that will go on my audio page.

Why people break these things up into multiple-parts I don’t know. One MP3 goes on my site, and re-encoded at 16 kbps which is just fine! :thumbsup:

Phil P


All right, MP3 now on my site, one nice clear MP3, volume boosted slightly, re-encoded at 32 kbps which is fine (it is under 2 hours total).

Habermas vs. Humphreys Resurrection Debate (MP3)

I’ve listened once, Habermas takes a different approach than William Lane Craig. Craig is more systematic and rules out other explanations, arguing the “best explanation” for (1) the empty tomb, (2) the appearances of Jesus, (3) the origin of the Christian belief, is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. BTW, he’s argued this same case since at least 1980 when his book The Son Rises (which I recently got) was published by Moody (and reprinted in 2001). Very excellent case and skeptics always have a hard time answering it (in my opinion).

Habermas (who has a dozen or more books on the resurrection) takes the approach that the “data” (his favorite term) is early, noting he can argue for the resurrection from the “data” (there’s that word again :smiley: ) that the skeptics accept. Meaning by “data” the “genuine” Pauline epistles (either 7 or 8) accepted by virtually all biblical scholars and dated between 50 AD and 60 AD, and argues the “data” in the creedal-like formula (Christ died, was buried, was raised, and appeared to… etc) of 1 Cor 15:3ff goes back to at least AD 35 (and discusses a couple of prominent scholars that agree with this).

Craig’s approach is more systematic and (I think) easier to follow, while Habermas seems to talk extemporaneously (off the top of his head) and doesn’t present the evidence for the resurrection as thoroughly as his books (he only had 20 minutes of course).

Humphreys tries to argue that the resurrection is a “fairy tale” like “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” comparing “Christian apologetics” to the “evidence” in that story. He says all “Christian apologetics” is “bogus.” Not very impressive.

They also get into Josephus, and briefly Tacitus, Seutonius, First Clement, and St. Justin Martyr (on the definition of “martyr”), and Liberty University (where Habermas teaches) vs. other (secular) universities (in the question-answer period).

I give the debate a 3 checks out of 5. Compare with Craig vs. Ehrman (5 checks out of 5), and Craig vs. Crossan (also 5 checks out of 5).

Phil P


Had Habermas as a professor when I was at Liberty. Intelligent guy who knows his material.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit