10:15 - Really tacky for Licona to resort to ad hominem attacks on Ehrman; it really only emphasizes that Licona lacks a response to Ehrman's brilliant and rational take on the issue.
@ludogogo That is hardly a ad hominem. Licona is simply pointing out that Ehrman has biases the same as Licona. The point he is trying to make is that historians are trying to gather data with their biases, but at the same time remaining objective to the data.
@CapsHockey100 No, Bart does not gather data with bias; please give me an example of how he does this. Licona was definitely employing ad hominem attacks by trying to discredit what Bart was saying by implying that he is driven by money; very weak tactic.
@ludogogo I think you are simply mistaken on this point. Everyone, including Ehrman, come to the data with biases. The simple fact that he is a Westerner is a bias that Ehrman has. The time period he was born in gives him a bias. His experiences as a child give a bias. The list goes on. The main thing is that virtually no scholar or historian would say that they approach the data without biases. We all do.
@ludogogo Additionally, I mean how do we know money wasn't a factor? It could have been. I don't pretend to know if it was or not, but I do know Christian televangelists are accused of this all the time and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. The point is that it is possible that it could have been a driving force (and Ehrman certainly has made a good living for himself) even if it was a subconscious one. Again, I don't pretend to know though.
@CapsHockey100 I understand and I can reasonably make the same conjecture; but to my point... regardless of driving force, it would not make a difference on the truthiness of his statements. You could write anything and make a buck off of it. Bart Ehrman would have to sacrafice quite a rapport amongst the scholarly community to publish hog wash for the sake of a dollar. The books that he has written have been scholarly reviewed... they are reliable no matter the money that is involved.
@ludogogo I agree that it wouldn't affect the truthfulness of his arguments. But that is also why they agree on the same data. So the question comes in, which is the best explanation of the data. If I have a bias that miracles are to be rejected a priori, then I am never going to grant one regardless of the data. So biases can come into play, the question is are they justified. This brings us to money/Ehrman. Neither of us are in a position to know if money was a driving force.
@ludogogo Your right, essentially you could right off anything as someone trying to make a buck of it (unless they suffered for their claims). But certainly if the money is in writing pro-evolution stuff (for example), there is an incentive to want to write and teach on that subject isn't there? Also, simply bc they are reviewed doesn't mean they good good reviews! For example, his view on miracles is problematic, but as I said, he agrees with Licona's data. So how do we interp. that?
Salmon Ruzdic - okay if we take your line of argument seriously, offer your historical proof that Christ's body was thrown in a common grave. We must base our argument on evidence, do you have any evidence for your claim? My claim is based upon the witness of people at the time who claimed Christ rose from the dead! Finally, why did the Romans and the Jews of Israel not simply make the point you are making; they had a vested interest to disporve Christianity but did not!
I like how Licona brought up data that suggests that women are more prone to hallucinations, because women were supposedly the first to see Jesus alive after his death. lol
Ehrman, 'Jesus interrupted', is great. also E.A.Wallis Budge, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', sceptical Bible scholars: Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Victor J Stenger, Robert M Price, Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Richard Carrier, David Mills, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
Bart Ergman proves the point - the ressurection - which is rooted in the testimony of the apostles; - which historians aceept as a fact and which Bart Ergman did not ever deny either - proves the existance as GOD. Only GOD could raise the Christ from the dead. Bart Ergmans argument about ilusinations falls down from a naturalistic perspective - group illusinations just don't happen even the specialists in the field, don't bother to talk about it cos their is nothing out there...
You say that group illusions don't happen, even though Ehrman clearly points out that they do, and even a few minutes spent on Google will show him to be correct.
Radical sceptism underlies the whole argument of Bart Ergman, if GOD acts in history, and their are witnesses to that action we can say what GOD did in history... and that is exactly what happend, the early witnesses; the only witnesses, say that Christ rose from the dead, after crucifixion, Bart Ergman argues 'visions' is the likely explanation. well fine... now just show us the body in the tomb; the early jews and romans would have produced the body.... it would have silenced the Christians..
@suminvictus Calling it radical doesn't make it so, let's try to remove some of that invective language.
It doesn't matter if witnesses say that God was the cause of something, since anything God does is untraceable by historians or able to be replicated by the natural sciences. Did you even listen to Ehrman in this video?
If I gather a bunch of witnesses together that all agree that some God caused the Japanese Tsunami, that doesn't make it so, unless you presuppose a God.
Respond to this video... How do you know that they didn't produce the body? Remember what Ehrman said about having sources that are uninterested in the subject? If they are biased towards believing that Jesus was resurrected, showing them a body isn't going to prove anything. It would be like showing a modern-day conspiracy theorist the body of Osama Bin Laden, they would just claim that it is someone else's body.
@suminvictus You fail to appreciate the fact that crucified criminals in Roman Empire would not normally be buried in family tombs, they would either be left on the cross to be eaten by birds to induce further humiliation or they were buried in mass graves where bodies decompose in a matter of days. You believe Romans didn't want to humiliate Jesus? The empty tomb story is most likely a legendary embellishment.
Everything Licona says about "facts are stubborn things" and "let's let the facts speak for themselves" and "let's be open-minded" and "let's not allow our biases to interfere" is 100% projection on his part.
Facts are stubborn things: this expression has gone more against religion than for it.
Bias demonstrably on believers who presuppose their beliefs. What is faith if not belief despite lack of evidence / in the face of contradictory evidence? Stick to faith, Mike.
You have to be retarded to be a Christian, only morons can belief that an innocent man be punished for someone sins, and they called it Justices, if God is Just.
Christianity imposed on people of the world base on Wars, Deceit, psychological manipulation, enslavement, false propaganda, Economic strangulation, Exploitation and Fake healer.
95% of the peoples of the world want to be told what to do, and how to behave.
@BiblesOnLine Friend, you have to be 'retarded' not to accept the payment of a debt you owe that you are unable to pay. True Christianity is innocent of the sophistries you listed. Jesus never taught His followers to destroy or manipulate anyone. He is your saviour who died for your sins and not just your saviour but the saviour of the whole world.
@73geneva No ONE DIED FOR YOUR SINS Book Of Ezekiel Ch: 18 V: 20
20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. Ezekiel Ch: 18 V: 20
@73geneva The word for “Messiah comes from the Hebrew root word, “Msh” which to “touch lightly” or “rub with oil” This word is applied to Priests (Exodus 28:41), Kings (I Kings 19:16), and Prophets (I Samuel 12:5) who were chosen by God to accomplish specific tasks. In fact, the foreign King Cyrus of Persia is addressed as “Anointed”.
Agreed, coz the Jews planned to get Jesus killed as a false prophet in Deuteronomy 13:5 "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death ..."
@broadcastdeez Ehrman agrees with Licona's facts, he doesn't refute them at all from what I saw, unless I missed something and you could point it out for me. Ehrman agrees with Licona's facts, however he disagrees as to the best explanation of those facts.
@l0rdPh0en1x Another question: if Jesus is nailing a hooker, is it a gang-bang (3 Persons) or standard sex (1 god)? Maybe this is a finer theological question best left to those who make a living counting the number of dancing angels on pins, but I think one must have compassion towards the hooker. How would she determine how many people to charge?
One thing Ehrman gets somewhat wrong is at 22:17. It does not follow that you have to believe in gods to believe in the living dead. If one is willing to consider the existence of the supernatural as a reasonable hypothesis, the form with which that supernatural explanation takes is legion. How about ninja leprechans? The only property about X that follows from "X caused the dead to rise" is that X has zombie-creating abilities.
@myerssa7 :What you're saying is correct. Because you can be an atheist and believe in say, "magic," or you could be an atheist and think that man just naturally has the power to raise from their own death. Many scenarios that don't neccessitate a belief in a god and still believe a man can be raised from the dead.You know?
@confluential Yep, if the supernatural is given historical credibility, then spells, UFO-driving unicorns, & ghost pirates are all plausible explanations. Atheists can technically believe in angels, demons, souls & devils, just not gods; though most western atheists are materialists as well. Judging by the torture symbol on the podium, Erhman was simplifying for his audience. Incidentally, one can believe in gods that lack resurrecting powers, if omnipotence isn't a characteristic of those gods.
@myerssa7 :Yes, that's another good point. Nice to see a solid critical thinker on You Tube. I agree he was simplifying, but as a matter of finer thinking, we are in agreement about the requirement for what atheism is:
Theologians base their theory on "FAITH" and not "FACTS". Therefore A lot of Christians fail to convince people with a decent education. Not buying the new Gospels or believing in the "JESUS" theory is ok. When I have issues at work, want a raise, or close a deal, I don't go to "help", but rather a superior hierarchy. My life doesn't depend on a worker, but rather a greater GOD. If Jesus did exist, he probably was just another servant, but not a GOD or a son of a GOD. Just my honest opinion.
It is clear that Licona won the debate. How do i know...All i have to do is see all the mad atheist writing comments trying to re-assure themselves of how great Ehrman arguments were. When he really didn't have much of an argument through the whole debate.
@TrueTaike :That's silly. As an atheist I'm having fun and posting.I'm not angry, and I don't need reassurances of my own opinion. Erhman seems to have facts on his side, Licona; not so much. What's so hard about understanding that cruxifiction has nothing to do with a claim about a resurrection? My goodness, think for a minute.Are you thinking as you're posting?
Christians can believe whatever they want but they should stop trying to prove the historicity of their belief. Licona is extremely bias in his historical quest. He establishes 3 facts with strict historical method, but in the end he gives a purely Christian explanation. What if we say that the Devil appeared like Jesus to the disciple. What if God raised Jesus before the crucifixion, and replaced him with another man miraculously.
Maybe when Licona started doubting his arguments and belief (as he mentioned in the first video), it was a good time to use reason and logic to be the guidance for him. He would not have come out with these "distraction arguments" of medicine ...
@igwood71 hes saying that miracles cant be proven historically because miracles are most improbable. but that is his naturalistic assumption, which he should not corrupt the historical probabilities with.
@202rickh As a Christian and an amature theologian, I believe you are being unfair. I consider intellectual honesty INCREDIBLY important as a Ph.D. student in astrophysics.
As much as I respect Dr. Ehrman, I believe he is also being unfair insofar as he precludes the existence of the supernatural - thus his conclusion follows directly from that a priori assumption. In reality, however, we must observe and discern whether the supernatural occurs. This is incredibly difficult to fairly do.
Ehrman's argument is that miracles simply don't happen, and this he concludes with or without historical analysis. His historical analysis is therefore bogus.
Bart Ehrman says that whenever you talk about what God has done you're doing theology, not history. If this is correct then my question to Bart is, so whenever you talk about what humans have done you're doing anthropology, not history?
The 4 Gospels are all pretty vague regarding the actual ressurection, .. Christianity stands and falls on this issue, I'd have thought the bible would be watertight and unambiguous on this point.
Bart Erhman spells it out clearly and presicely, I love listening to his lectures. People like Licona and William Lane Craig come across as dupicitious
The notion that Paul was not a candidate for hallucination is absurd. He was a compassionate man whose ideology was leading him to slaughter human beings. His hallucination was most likely the result of massive internal conflict.
15:47 - Positing a God and being "open to a God" is a good example of trying to have your cake and eat it to. You're not saying there IS a God, yet your conclusion DEMANDS it. It's circular reasoning. Licona is being dishonest yet again because his premise not being open to "a God" but, rather, a very specific God that has a vested interest in Jesus. The claim is not falsifiable, which may not be a strict criteria for historical standards, but has to be considered on natural grounds.Its Theology
Licona says that he didn't decide in favor of the resurrection based on theological bent, yet he clearly indicates at 9:27 that he "agonized" over the decision and even says he could have went either direction. So the question there is: why did he choose the supernatural claim over something more natural, or simply saying "we just don't know". He HAS to recognize that he could only tip that scale to one side using theology...there is no other way when each side appears equally valid.
Yes, it is especially common after a tragic loss or emotional upheaval. The disciples suffered a devastating loss. The person they thought was the messiah died a humiliating death...squashed like a bug. This would most certainly cause strong emotional reactions including grief..which very often leads to hallucinations.
I usually like Bart, but "I don't believe in hallucinations?" Ouch. Oh well, he doesn't claim to know psychology or human physiology, so I won't be too hard on him.
@uv777gr Because of his acceptance o the historical Jesus? It is weak evidence, I agree. All in the gospels, no contemporary accounts and tampered Roman evidence. In ancient history you don't get the evidence you want. Ultimately this mix of history and religion is bound to be fraudulent. What could Licona say other than give straws bible literalists can hang to? Ehrman suffers from the same dilemma since he is speaking to same audience. The truth would leave both out of a job.
Mike Licona can you not stick to the debate and stop side tracking, you seem incapable of debating effectively and you are clutching at straws. Please can we have the first hand testimony of jesus disciples? can we have the first hand testimony of pilate and the roman guards? NO because all records were written at least 70yrs after the event happened. in future i will simply scroll forward past your spiel
"James is still believing Jesus' is God and if He is such He can also resurrect, which James preached as leader of the J. church"
Here you are assigning later tradition, belief and practice to earlier people. There is nothing to suggest that James thought Jesus was God - either before or after the resurrection. It's a late 1st C construct that appears in John, 30 years after James' death. James maybe thought Jesus was blessed by God but not God himself and he didn't preach it.
"What you are arguing here is that Jesus' miracles were in fact so strong and well attested that James believed even before the resurrection. That would still support resurrection as well"
It supports Jesus miracles but it doesn't really say anything about the resurrection. If you have already become a believer on day 1, then whether you see the risen Jesus on day 2 or not, you will still be a believer on day 3.
@AKAKArnott If Jesus did miracles, why not a resurrection? Or to put it another way, Jesus' miracles are less historically verified than the resurrection, yet are you conceding that these miracles took place, then why not a resurrection as well
Are you seriously maintaining that James disbelief has strong evidence for it and has multiple attestations? Of the passages you cited none even mention James by name and only 1/4 even provides a very weak suggestion that this might be so and it's really stretching it to even say that.
@AKAKArnott No they dont mention James, they mention all of Jesus' brothers, of which james is one. At the very very least Mark 6 and John 7:5 provide two separate sources that attest to Jesus' brothers disbelief.
@AKAKArnott Also, the fact that none of his brothers were recorded at Jesus' death or burial speaks volumes. In addition, John takes the responsibility of taking care of Mary and not any of Jesus' half brothers, at least initially Jn. 19:25-27. So I do not think it is very weak, especially in ancient history.
@AKAKArnott I just want to get back to this thread for a moment...So we have at least Jn and Mk referencing Jesus' brothers skepticism. I do not mean just James was the skeptic, but that all of his half-brothers, James, Judas, Simon, and Joseph were. Thus, the texts need not mention James directly, but all his brothers. We know that at the very least James became the leader in the Jerusalem church and that it Judas probably wrote Jude. They went from being skeptics to believers.
@AKAKArnott I would also like to add another reason or line of evidence as to why scholars believe this is the principle of embarrassment, "People are not going to invent a story that's going to be embarrassing or potentially discrediting to them, and it would be particularly humiliating for a first-century rabbi not to have his own family as his followers."
"John's passage is particularly interesting. It suggests that his brothers had heard about his alleged miracles but didn't believe...in a
"the principle of embarrassment" you state this as though it's an overarching rule that applies in all cases, almost as like its a principle of physics or mechanics. It isn't even close. It's a very loose and weak generalization that (to quote Shakespeare) is "more honoured in the breach than in the observance".
You have suggested that it is accepted in courts. I strongly disagree. It might be a tactic used by attorneys to persuade but that's the extent of its acceptance.
@AKAKArnott No certainly it is not a matter of fact and their are exceptions to the rule, but there is nothing to indicate that this is the case in either source. I think you would be very hard pressed to find any scholar or even lawyer for that matter who believe that it is very 'loose or weak' if you could find some I would be very interested. They are used in courts, to give the most basic example one need only watch Judge Judy, lol.
@AKAKArnott Attorneys would use it bc it is persuasive, but why is it persuasive? Again, people do not normally (normally, not always but normally) do not paint themselves in a negative light. IE a man would not normally come to court and admit that he had an affair, this certainly would not make him look very good at all. We can reasonably believe that he actually had an affair unless any new information is brought forward.
People write things that paint themselves in an unflattering light all the time. We've both done it ourselves in this debate.
But returning to specifics James 'conversion' would paint the resurrection in a powerful light wouldn't it? It would only be embarrassing to James and as he didn't write any of the gospels and was dead before they were written it's hard to see how the 'principle' of embarrassment even if it were valid, is applicable in this case.
@AKAKArnott I dont think that either of us have really used this principle in our discussions, but if we have done so it would have been done to convey the truth, no? Yes James' conversion would paint the resurrection in a better light, but this is nowhere made explicit in the NT documents. We do not see the writers saying, look James used to disbelieve, but now he does and it was bc of the resurrection. This arguement, as I have said, still would not negate the truth of the matter anyway.
@AKAKArnott Its quite applicable bc as I quoted Licona, ""People are not going to invent a story that's going to be embarrassing or potentially discrediting to them, and it would be particularly humiliating for a first-century rabbi not to have his own family as his followers." I mean we would certainly expect Jesus' own half brothers to believe in Him, yet they dont.
When we combine this principle and the fact that it is multiply attested, this fact becomes impressively historical.
"People are not going to invent a story that's going to be embarrassing or potentially discrediting to them"
I think you're getting pre-occupied with the principle instead of the application. The embarrassment applies to the writer and only then if he is writing about himself. Jesus didn't write the gospels so how can you say that this principle (even if true) applies in this case.
@AKAKArnott The best way to think of the principle of embarrassment is to ask this question: Why invent something that would be a stumbling block to those who you are trying to persuade?
I agree 100%. So let's examine why this would be a stumbling block to potential converts.
The people that are trying to be persuaded here are either unbelievers or people that have never heard of Jesus - yes?
They are being told that other people like them that didn't believe, even Jesus' family and Christian persecuters, were all convereted after the resurrection.
Then they are being told that they themselves who didn't previously believe now have a chance to convert.
2/2 So I ask you - how in any way shape or form can this possibly be a stumbling block to potential converts?
It's a text book example of how to set your audience up.
It has echoes of the flim flam miracle cure potion salesman of the 1930's.
"Why should we buy this stuff from you?"
"Because I was once a cripple, just like you sir and after one bottle of miracle cure I'm as light on my feet as a teenager, It worked for me it can work for you too"
@AKAKArnott Yes, I see your point. But it is pursuasive exactly bc of its truthfulness. There would be other ways to write a pursuasive story, but if we equate pursuasiveness with falsity, then we should not read any article that attempts to demonstrate a fact. If the miracle potion worked, then yes we should buy it. The thing is, John and Mk only say these things in brief passing, they dont go "HEY these guys disbelieved, but now they believe." They just say they didnt believe.
@AKAKArnott More importantly, neither Jn nor Mk tell that Jesus' brothers later become followers of Jesus, they just mention their skepticism. So it does not have the persuasive, deceptive look that I think you are getting at. We know that they were converted through both Luke, Acts, Josephus, and others.
"we would certainly expect Jesus' own half brothers to believe in Him, yet they dont", "it is multiply attested, this fact becomes impressively historical"
.
Ok, let's re-cap on this;
The multiple attestation that his brothers (we'll ignore James specifically for the moment) don't believe in him hangs on 3 passages:
Mark 3:21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself". (No brothers or disbelief)
@AKAKArnott Okay sounds good, I think we are due for a re-cap. At the surface of it your case seems good, but I think you are oversimplifying the situation. What do I mean?
To begin with Mark 3:21. This was the one I was checking on bc I was unsure of the Greek. Each translation treats this verse a little bit different. The one you quoted from is the KJV. The ESV says 'family' and the NASB, which seems to have the most accurate Greek translation on this text says, "when His own people..."
@AKAKArnott This is usually considered to be Jesus' family and in fact the NASB that I used had an a footnote on the text and at the bottom it sats "or kinsmen." I also looked at some other sources as well to see what exactly the Greek meant. It seems as though it is referring to His family or kin. You can do some checking on this as well. I use Google books almost exclusively! jk. The context also alludes to the family showing up to actually lay hold of Him in 3:31.
@AKAKArnott No mention of disbelief. Right, but they thought He was crazy or lost his mind. The next verse says that the scribes thought He was possessed. So they definitely not thinking Him to be the Messiah. Needless to say, we can infer that they were skeptical of such Messianic claims.
He is 'beside himself' - it's a real stretch to say that means they thought he's lost his mind.
"the scribes thought He was possessed" - the scribes are not the issue here, it's Jesus' family that were talking about. We know the scribes didn't think he was the messiah, that's not in dispute.
@AKAKArnott What do you think it meant? I think we can both agree that he was not literally standing beside Himself. The Greek word is "existemi" and is also used in Acts 26:24; 2 Cor. 5:13. In both contexts it is used for a person who has gone mad or is crazy. So we have the context and two other cases from two different authors who use it in the same context as well.
The scribes are not the issue I agree, but they give light to the context.
Mark 6:4 "But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house" (A statement made to a crowd about prophets generally that does not mention his brothers, individually or as group)
John 7:5
"For neither did his brethren believe in him" (In this context brethren clearly means group of people around him not his brothers - John doesn't seem to know that Jesus has any brothers)
@AKAKArnott Right now, I think MK 6:4 says the least of the three citations. But it is not just MK 6:4, but the whole context. Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Mar 6:6 And he marveled because of their unbelief...
I think we can imply a consistent story here. The unbelievers refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters.
I'm sorry, I can accept different interpretations of certain phrases and words depending on the context, but to say that this passage says anything about Jesus' family not believing in him is just flat out wrong. It is the crowd that is talking to Jesus and they mention his bothers and sisters to show that he is a normal flesh and blood mortal with human siblings. That's all - there's nothing whatsoever to suggest that Jesus'family don't believbe in him in this passage.
@AKAKArnott If it was the crowd, why is the word "adelphos" used? This word means brother either literally or metaphorically. Yet, if they were disbelievers then they are not brothers in Christ in the metaphorical sense. This is the strongest passage to me that James was a skeptic. It does not mean that he spoke out against Jesus or persecuted Him. Simply that He did not believe or follow Jesus during His earthly ministry.
@AKAKArnott John 7:5 is pretty straight forward. I dont think you can say "*clearly* this means a group of people around Him..." The scholars dont believe that this conclusion is *clearly* the better solution. In any event, John distinguishes from mere "crowds" standing around Jesus in other passages (he says this phrase about 14x in his Gospel) .
John is simply mentioning Jesus' brothers disbelief, we should expect it to be rather brief due to its embarrassing aspect.
I didn't say it was 'a crowd' I said the people around him. This is very close to the 'his own people' translation that you mentioned earlier. This is in Gallilee remember not Nazareth so why would his brothers be following him around in Gallilee, especially if they didn't believe in him?
The author of John was extremely profficient in Koine Greek. He would certainly have known how to say his 'brothers' or 'family if that had been his intention - yet he doesn't do this - why?
" John is simply mentioning Jesus' brothers disbelief, we should expect it to be rather brief due to its embarrassing aspect"
So why does he even mention it at all then if it's embarrssing? John misses out far more significant events in Jesus' lfe (according to the synpotic gospels). So why did he feel compelled to include this detail - it isn't necessary for the overall gospel message or for the particular story it appears in. Why not just say Jesus went to Judea?
@AKAKArnott It is relavent to the biography that John is providing. John may have known about the synoptics before he wrote and chose to write on other aspects of Jesus' life. We cannot look at what he did not record, but only what he did record. The context of John 7 is that there are those seeking to kill Jesus bc of His teachings, yet He still teaches as one with authority. Many were still upset with Him for healing on the Sabbath. His brothers seemingly daring Jesus is part of the event.
What you are suggesting here makes no sense. If his brothers think he is crazy / insane / mad, why do they dare him to go and preach in Judea and put himself in mortal danger. This kind of mortal danger was exactly the kind of thing that you are saying they stopped him from doing in Mark when they went to lay hands on him. There is no consistency in your interpretation of these gospels.
If Jesus brothers didn't believe in him, why are they following him around Galilee and not at home in Nazareth?
This multiply attested impressively historical fact has no support at all in the Bible.
This is my main gripe with Christianity - it's not even a question of if the Bible is true or not. It's Church leaders claiming stuff is in the Bible when it isn't , 'scholars' backing them up and the masses blindly believing and refusing to accept what's in black and white.
@AKAKArnott I understand where you are coming from and why you think this. But I think you are mistaken bc there is much more to it than what you assert. People have dedicated their lives to studying the subject, and let me be very clear here, they aren't all Christians! I am willing to listen to someone who has studied Greek for 20 years to help explain the context of a Greek text.
"People have dedicated their lives to studying the subject -they aren't all Christians! I am willing to listen to someone who has studied Greek for 20 years to help explain the context of a Greek text"
So which non Christian Greek scholars are you referring to here?
The Darby Translation is probablythe truest widely availableliteral translation around and that, as well as Wycliffe, Young's Literal andmost others uses 'brethren'.
@AKAKArnott Ehrman would be a perfect example. Gerd Ludemann another. The NASB and KJV/NKJV are considered, in the Bible Belt of the States, to be the most literal translations.
The term brethren is used a lot in the NT. Sometimes it's clearly means blood brothers and other times it clearly doesn't. In John the absolute best you can say is that is it is unclear and open to interpretation.
Now let's not lose sight of what this debate isactually about. It's not about whether these events are true or not, it's about whether there is strong evidence to suggest that they were to a historical probabilityas apologists contend.......
@AKAKArnott I disagree, John is by far the most clear. When it is used metaphorically, it is done so to refer to a body of believers and not a body of unbelievers. So we are only left with the option that it is Jesus' brothers. Additionally, to say that the term brothers will never be reasonably certain to mean Jesus' literal brothers makes any claim that Jesus' brothers had done something unfalsifiable. Thus, we can see when everything is laid out the evidence is quite strong.
I'd suggest that there isn't strong evidence for this. You cite only the Bible as a source and there is no single passage even in there that clearly supports your position. Had you not aleady had the belief that Jesus' brothers were skeptical you couldn't honestly look at what was written and conclude with any kind of surety that this was the case. I'm not saying that it isn't true - but if you believe it, it is a faith belief not one derived from strong evidence.
@AKAKArnott You say I only cite the Bible as a source as though it is non-historical. Yes it reports supernatural events, but so does tacitus. If I only cited tacitus would that be wrong? I have not even been offering evidence for a supernatural event, but merely that Jesus' brothers were not followers during His lifetime. Moreover, the Bible is not one source but multiple sources from different authors. I would say that I am not 100% certain that James was a skeptic, but 95% and my faith
The Bible may be multiple sources from different authors - but the gospels aren't are they. Mark is the only truly independent source out of the 4, the other synoptics copy from him to a large degree. John does so to a far lesser degree but John was written 30-40 years after Mark and a long time after it was in circulation.
@AKAKArnott As far as Jesus' Resurrection is concerned, 32 Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 Christian denominations in the RSV has a footnote for Mark 16:9-20 stating "Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to an end of verse 8 ...", indicating that the narrative of Jesus' Resurrection as described in Mark 16:9-20 is a lie.
Christian scholars are changing footnotes in order to make the Resurrection look legendary? I suppose Christians would want to turn the Resurrection into legend rather than fact.
If you ask my opinion I would say that (whether they actually were or not) during the 2nd half of the 1st C there was probably a belief by many that Jesus' brothers were skeptical. I base this not on the evidence you've provided but on what you might call a sister principle to the principle of embarrassment. The principal of credibilty.
The fact is that Matthew & Luke don't mention the skepticism of Jesus' brothers even though it's arguably suggested in Mark.
@AKAKArnott Wouldn't it not be possible that Matthew and Luke leave it out precisely bc the think it is embarrassing? (however, Matt. does report a similar version of Mk. in Matt 13:55-57.).
It's because they realize that it is simply not credible to suggest that Jesus family (even Mary) could possibly be doubters if the event of the virgin birth as they depict it, actually took place - and they are correct. So they simply omit this from their gospels. It's no coincidence that the two gospels that suggest a skeptical family are the two that don't have virgin birth stories in them.
Of all the gospels only Mark, to me, has any realism in it, even though it has been doctored and edited somewhat over time. When you strip down Mark you get a picture of Jesus as a man, not God in the flesh and not the subject of a miraculous birth. A preacher and prophet that wasn't resurrected and who died an agonizing death on the cross as he lost hi faith in God
..to save him. There was no resurrection and no post resurrection appearancesrch.-as the original version of Mark actually reads. The Church quite clearly in many cases (and the added on ending to mark is one) had no scruples about making stuff up to augment what their view of Jesus was or needed to be. The later the gospels get away from Mark the more fantastic and unbelievable they get until you end up with the Jesus of John - who is actually God himself.
@AKAKArnott That is an interesting look in Mk. But what do you do with texts such as Mk. 2 where Jesus claims to forgive sins, something only God could do, so the Jews tried to stone him. Or what about Paul's works which come even earlier. They dont mention the virgin birth either, but they focus Jesus resurrection, atoning death, and Messiahship.
1) It is an embarassing fact for the Gospels to include
2) None of Jesus' brothers are there during His crucifixion; and Jesus gives care of His mother over to John instead of to the next oldest son of Mary.
3) None of Jesus' brothers are reported as following or being discipled by Him during His lifetime. Yet they were reported as following Jesus after His death.
4) The interpretations of the multiple independent texts presented fit consistently and coherently with the above facts demonstrating the skepticism of Jesus' brothers (Remember, we are just demonstrating that they are skeptical of the who Jesus was during His lifetime.).
John Meier writes that unbelief on the part of several of Jesus' family members being found in multiple Gospels may have been embarrassing if not deeply offensive to a large part of the early church.
This is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion and approach. I don't doubt that many scholars share this view of James. I don't necessarily believe that this opinion is wrong.
.
What I doubt is that this opinion is based on either fact or strong evidence.
@AKAKArnott To make a quick clarification, it is not just many, but the large majority. upper 90% according to Habermas. We are discussing the facts elsewhere so I hope we can continue to discuss the evidence that you doubt.
You misunderstand my position. I don't think James' Epistle was written by James based on my reading of it. But that's just my opinion - you may think it does, in which case you are quite justified in using it to support your contentions about James' conversion. So do you think it was written by James?
Yeah of course - but without going into specifics would it be fair to say that you have some doubts over its authenticity - in terms of the identity of its author?
@AKAKArnott I have not studied it in any great detail. I am planning on listening to some lectures on it from various scholars, but I do believe it to be the Word of God as you probably guessed.
Now I am not saying that your view is wrong.I'm saying that the evidence does not support it. It may not contradict it but it doesn't validate your position An example:
"To argue that James was not martyred [...] you would need to present some very strong evidence". We have words that say James was killed and they don't say why. It is for you to argue that it was martyrdom if the account doesn't actually say so.
@AKAKArnott As I also appreciate our discussion, probably more than any other one I have had, I would like to add that this sword that you have used against me cuts both ways. Your view would have an equal number of bias.' I do like that you say that we can say James was killed but we dont need to say why. I argue similarly that we can say Jesus died and was raised, but we dont need to say why, but clearly God is by far the best explanation.
10:15 - Really tacky for Licona to resort to ad hominem attacks on Ehrman; it really only emphasizes that Licona lacks a response to Ehrman's brilliant and rational take on the issue.
ludogogo 2 months ago
@ludogogo That is hardly a ad hominem. Licona is simply pointing out that Ehrman has biases the same as Licona. The point he is trying to make is that historians are trying to gather data with their biases, but at the same time remaining objective to the data.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 No, Bart does not gather data with bias; please give me an example of how he does this. Licona was definitely employing ad hominem attacks by trying to discredit what Bart was saying by implying that he is driven by money; very weak tactic.
ludogogo 2 months ago
@ludogogo I think you are simply mistaken on this point. Everyone, including Ehrman, come to the data with biases. The simple fact that he is a Westerner is a bias that Ehrman has. The time period he was born in gives him a bias. His experiences as a child give a bias. The list goes on. The main thing is that virtually no scholar or historian would say that they approach the data without biases. We all do.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@ludogogo Additionally, I mean how do we know money wasn't a factor? It could have been. I don't pretend to know if it was or not, but I do know Christian televangelists are accused of this all the time and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. The point is that it is possible that it could have been a driving force (and Ehrman certainly has made a good living for himself) even if it was a subconscious one. Again, I don't pretend to know though.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@CapsHockey100 I understand and I can reasonably make the same conjecture; but to my point... regardless of driving force, it would not make a difference on the truthiness of his statements. You could write anything and make a buck off of it. Bart Ehrman would have to sacrafice quite a rapport amongst the scholarly community to publish hog wash for the sake of a dollar. The books that he has written have been scholarly reviewed... they are reliable no matter the money that is involved.
ludogogo 2 months ago
@ludogogo I agree that it wouldn't affect the truthfulness of his arguments. But that is also why they agree on the same data. So the question comes in, which is the best explanation of the data. If I have a bias that miracles are to be rejected a priori, then I am never going to grant one regardless of the data. So biases can come into play, the question is are they justified. This brings us to money/Ehrman. Neither of us are in a position to know if money was a driving force.
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
@ludogogo Your right, essentially you could right off anything as someone trying to make a buck of it (unless they suffered for their claims). But certainly if the money is in writing pro-evolution stuff (for example), there is an incentive to want to write and teach on that subject isn't there? Also, simply bc they are reviewed doesn't mean they good good reviews! For example, his view on miracles is problematic, but as I said, he agrees with Licona's data. So how do we interp. that?
CapsHockey100 2 months ago
shitty weazel can you give some examples of mass illusinations that have been studied by experts and said to be such?
suminvictus 2 months ago
Salmon Ruzdic - okay if we take your line of argument seriously, offer your historical proof that Christ's body was thrown in a common grave. We must base our argument on evidence, do you have any evidence for your claim? My claim is based upon the witness of people at the time who claimed Christ rose from the dead! Finally, why did the Romans and the Jews of Israel not simply make the point you are making; they had a vested interest to disporve Christianity but did not!
suminvictus 2 months ago
I like how Licona brought up data that suggests that women are more prone to hallucinations, because women were supposedly the first to see Jesus alive after his death. lol
NaturalMiracleMan 3 months ago
Ehrman is brilliant.
NaturalMiracleMan 3 months ago
Isn't Jesus the most written about spiritual character?
d007ization 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ehrman, 'Jesus interrupted', is great. also E.A.Wallis Budge, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', sceptical Bible scholars: Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Victor J Stenger, Robert M Price, Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, Richard Carrier, David Mills, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 6 months ago
Bart Ergman proves the point - the ressurection - which is rooted in the testimony of the apostles; - which historians aceept as a fact and which Bart Ergman did not ever deny either - proves the existance as GOD. Only GOD could raise the Christ from the dead. Bart Ergmans argument about ilusinations falls down from a naturalistic perspective - group illusinations just don't happen even the specialists in the field, don't bother to talk about it cos their is nothing out there...
suminvictus 6 months ago
@suminvictus Get his name right.
You say that group illusions don't happen, even though Ehrman clearly points out that they do, and even a few minutes spent on Google will show him to be correct.
You are wrong.
ShiftyWeasel 4 months ago
Radical sceptism underlies the whole argument of Bart Ergman, if GOD acts in history, and their are witnesses to that action we can say what GOD did in history... and that is exactly what happend, the early witnesses; the only witnesses, say that Christ rose from the dead, after crucifixion, Bart Ergman argues 'visions' is the likely explanation. well fine... now just show us the body in the tomb; the early jews and romans would have produced the body.... it would have silenced the Christians..
suminvictus 6 months ago
@suminvictus Calling it radical doesn't make it so, let's try to remove some of that invective language.
It doesn't matter if witnesses say that God was the cause of something, since anything God does is untraceable by historians or able to be replicated by the natural sciences. Did you even listen to Ehrman in this video?
If I gather a bunch of witnesses together that all agree that some God caused the Japanese Tsunami, that doesn't make it so, unless you presuppose a God.
ShiftyWeasel 4 months ago
Respond to this video... How do you know that they didn't produce the body? Remember what Ehrman said about having sources that are uninterested in the subject? If they are biased towards believing that Jesus was resurrected, showing them a body isn't going to prove anything. It would be like showing a modern-day conspiracy theorist the body of Osama Bin Laden, they would just claim that it is someone else's body.
ShiftyWeasel 4 months ago
@suminvictus You fail to appreciate the fact that crucified criminals in Roman Empire would not normally be buried in family tombs, they would either be left on the cross to be eaten by birds to induce further humiliation or they were buried in mass graves where bodies decompose in a matter of days. You believe Romans didn't want to humiliate Jesus? The empty tomb story is most likely a legendary embellishment.
SalmanRuzdic 2 months ago
Hallucinations do occur and can be experimented with even if you don't believe in them, so Ehrman loses a point there xP
inphuriated 6 months ago
Everything Licona says about "facts are stubborn things" and "let's let the facts speak for themselves" and "let's be open-minded" and "let's not allow our biases to interfere" is 100% projection on his part.
Facts are stubborn things: this expression has gone more against religion than for it.
Bias demonstrably on believers who presuppose their beliefs. What is faith if not belief despite lack of evidence / in the face of contradictory evidence? Stick to faith, Mike.
AR333 6 months ago
Comment removed
AR333 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please study about Islam you will agree with that
Neayass7786 8 months ago
christianity= jesus died for their sins.
what is sin?=to broke the commandments
which commandments=NO IDEA
christianity=Joke
Prince0fPersia23 8 months ago
@Prince0fPersia23 Who told you there are no commandments broken? Haven't you yourself broken some, just as I have?
73geneva 6 months ago
You have to be retarded to be a Christian, only morons can belief that an innocent man be punished for someone sins, and they called it Justices, if God is Just.
Christianity imposed on people of the world base on Wars, Deceit, psychological manipulation, enslavement, false propaganda, Economic strangulation, Exploitation and Fake healer.
95% of the peoples of the world want to be told what to do, and how to behave.
BiblesOnLine 8 months ago
@BiblesOnLine Friend, you have to be 'retarded' not to accept the payment of a debt you owe that you are unable to pay. True Christianity is innocent of the sophistries you listed. Jesus never taught His followers to destroy or manipulate anyone. He is your saviour who died for your sins and not just your saviour but the saviour of the whole world.
73geneva 6 months ago
@73geneva Christianity is for the dumb, deaf, blind and idiot.
No wonder why every Christian who uses his brain looks for another faith.
Wake up Christians, God gave you a brain use it. Oh... What... I didn't realize it was a sin to think, sorry... never mind.
BiblesOnLine 6 months ago
@73geneva No ONE DIED FOR YOUR SINS Book Of Ezekiel Ch: 18 V: 20
20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. Ezekiel Ch: 18 V: 20
BiblesOnLine 6 months ago
@73geneva The word for “Messiah comes from the Hebrew root word, “Msh” which to “touch lightly” or “rub with oil” This word is applied to Priests (Exodus 28:41), Kings (I Kings 19:16), and Prophets (I Samuel 12:5) who were chosen by God to accomplish specific tasks. In fact, the foreign King Cyrus of Persia is addressed as “Anointed”.
BiblesOnLine 6 months ago
@73geneva Think, it is not illegal to think please.
Why did Jews want to kill Jesus?
Jews accuse Jesus of committing blasphemy calling himself (Messiah) prophet of God.
If the Jews succeed killing Jesus then Jesus was an imposter.
If the Jews failed to kill him then Jesus was a prophet of God.
I and the Father are one. John 10:30-36
This is what Jesus was telling the Jews. ("Whoever obeys the Messenger of God, he indeed obeys God)
BiblesOnLine 6 months ago
@BiblesOnLine
Agreed, coz the Jews planned to get Jesus killed as a false prophet in Deuteronomy 13:5 "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death ..."
FactualVSFictional 6 months ago
@73geneva The Jews killed many Prophets for who sin?
Shemiah, Iddo, Nathan, Gad, and Jehu - 2 Chron. 12:15; 1 Chron. 29:29; 20:34
2 Chronicles 16: 7-10
Elijah - 1 Kings 19: 10, 14.
Prophet, Micah - 1 Kings 22: 26-7
Prophet Zechariah - 2 Chronicles 24: 2l
Prophet Jeremiah - Jeremiah 15: 10; 18: 20-3; 20: 1-18; 36-40; 1:8; 27:11-19, 24
Isaiah - Hebrews 11:37
Prophet, Amos - Amos 7: 10-13
John the Baptist - Mark 6: 17-29
BiblesOnLine 6 months ago
"We still agree on my three points." What? Ehrman directly refuted his three points.
broadcastdeez 8 months ago
@broadcastdeez Ehrman agrees with Licona's facts, he doesn't refute them at all from what I saw, unless I missed something and you could point it out for me. Ehrman agrees with Licona's facts, however he disagrees as to the best explanation of those facts.
CapsHockey100 8 months ago 2
Licona's arguments screams with the following implicit message "but, but, but... I WANT TO BELIEEEEVE"!
esiosan 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 9 months ago
Do you know the difference between Jesus and a hooker? .....the look on their face as your nailing them.
l0rdPh0en1x 9 months ago
@l0rdPh0en1x Another question: if Jesus is nailing a hooker, is it a gang-bang (3 Persons) or standard sex (1 god)? Maybe this is a finer theological question best left to those who make a living counting the number of dancing angels on pins, but I think one must have compassion towards the hooker. How would she determine how many people to charge?
myerssa7 9 months ago
Who cares about the disciples having hallucinations or not?. Where is the evidence to prove the disciples were even historical characters?
cirogalli 9 months ago
liccona makes craig look like augustine
nubbs 10 months ago
One thing Ehrman gets somewhat wrong is at 22:17. It does not follow that you have to believe in gods to believe in the living dead. If one is willing to consider the existence of the supernatural as a reasonable hypothesis, the form with which that supernatural explanation takes is legion. How about ninja leprechans? The only property about X that follows from "X caused the dead to rise" is that X has zombie-creating abilities.
myerssa7 10 months ago
@myerssa7 :What you're saying is correct. Because you can be an atheist and believe in say, "magic," or you could be an atheist and think that man just naturally has the power to raise from their own death. Many scenarios that don't neccessitate a belief in a god and still believe a man can be raised from the dead.You know?
confluential 9 months ago
@confluential Yep, if the supernatural is given historical credibility, then spells, UFO-driving unicorns, & ghost pirates are all plausible explanations. Atheists can technically believe in angels, demons, souls & devils, just not gods; though most western atheists are materialists as well. Judging by the torture symbol on the podium, Erhman was simplifying for his audience. Incidentally, one can believe in gods that lack resurrecting powers, if omnipotence isn't a characteristic of those gods.
myerssa7 9 months ago
@myerssa7 :Yes, that's another good point. Nice to see a solid critical thinker on You Tube. I agree he was simplifying, but as a matter of finer thinking, we are in agreement about the requirement for what atheism is:
"A lack of belief in god or gods."
Thanks for your time.
confluential 9 months ago
Let the pwnage commence...
Gravija1980 11 months ago
talk about Red Herrings. Licona just used a whole lot of that.
Sakib241 11 months ago
Theologians base their theory on "FAITH" and not "FACTS". Therefore A lot of Christians fail to convince people with a decent education. Not buying the new Gospels or believing in the "JESUS" theory is ok. When I have issues at work, want a raise, or close a deal, I don't go to "help", but rather a superior hierarchy. My life doesn't depend on a worker, but rather a greater GOD. If Jesus did exist, he probably was just another servant, but not a GOD or a son of a GOD. Just my honest opinion.
ModusOP3RANDI 11 months ago
It is clear that Licona won the debate. How do i know...All i have to do is see all the mad atheist writing comments trying to re-assure themselves of how great Ehrman arguments were. When he really didn't have much of an argument through the whole debate.
TrueTaike 11 months ago
@TrueTaike LOL. You are funny.
BlkLion0726 11 months ago
@TrueTaike :That's silly. As an atheist I'm having fun and posting.I'm not angry, and I don't need reassurances of my own opinion. Erhman seems to have facts on his side, Licona; not so much. What's so hard about understanding that cruxifiction has nothing to do with a claim about a resurrection? My goodness, think for a minute.Are you thinking as you're posting?
confluential 9 months ago
Christians can believe whatever they want but they should stop trying to prove the historicity of their belief. Licona is extremely bias in his historical quest. He establishes 3 facts with strict historical method, but in the end he gives a purely Christian explanation. What if we say that the Devil appeared like Jesus to the disciple. What if God raised Jesus before the crucifixion, and replaced him with another man miraculously.
1MoreMuslim 11 months ago
Maybe when Licona started doubting his arguments and belief (as he mentioned in the first video), it was a good time to use reason and logic to be the guidance for him. He would not have come out with these "distraction arguments" of medicine ...
mirnesalic 11 months ago
bart ehrman is a genius oh my god couldn`t stop gasping 4 air when he pawned him on his 3 points daaaam licon u got served
TheZaidabdullah 1 year ago
Give Bart some acid, then he'll believe in hallucinations!!
wittenbergdoor 1 year ago
@igwood71 hes saying that miracles cant be proven historically because miracles are most improbable. but that is his naturalistic assumption, which he should not corrupt the historical probabilities with.
sungyak 1 year ago
@sungyak
1) Being "proven" historical already shows that you don't have a firm grasp on what historians do.
2) You are wrong to *accuse* Bart for assuming naturalism, because the historical method is what it is: it can't presuppose supernaturalism.
3) Supernaturalism is by definition "naturalism +" but that "plus" has to be proven.
4) It is not impossible to conclude that something supernatural did occur in history, but an extraordinary claim will require extraordinary support.
The end.
AR333 11 months ago
@202rickh As a Christian and an amature theologian, I believe you are being unfair. I consider intellectual honesty INCREDIBLY important as a Ph.D. student in astrophysics.
As much as I respect Dr. Ehrman, I believe he is also being unfair insofar as he precludes the existence of the supernatural - thus his conclusion follows directly from that a priori assumption. In reality, however, we must observe and discern whether the supernatural occurs. This is incredibly difficult to fairly do.
jmontgom10 1 year ago
Ehrman's argument is that miracles simply don't happen, and this he concludes with or without historical analysis. His historical analysis is therefore bogus.
sungyak 1 year ago
@sungyak Did you even listen to Ehrman's argument? His argument is that miracles can't be historically proven.
igwood71 1 year ago
Bart Ehrman says that whenever you talk about what God has done you're doing theology, not history. If this is correct then my question to Bart is, so whenever you talk about what humans have done you're doing anthropology, not history?
greenguynate 1 year ago
@greenguynate when you talk about what humans have done you're talking about both history and anthropology.
when you talk about what god has done, which god? if it's not your god, do you view it as theological, not historical?
igwood71 1 year ago
The 4 Gospels are all pretty vague regarding the actual ressurection, .. Christianity stands and falls on this issue, I'd have thought the bible would be watertight and unambiguous on this point.
Bart Erhman spells it out clearly and presicely, I love listening to his lectures. People like Licona and William Lane Craig come across as dupicitious
bonnie43uk 1 year ago
The notion that Paul was not a candidate for hallucination is absurd. He was a compassionate man whose ideology was leading him to slaughter human beings. His hallucination was most likely the result of massive internal conflict.
craigblack1234 1 year ago
Ehrman wins without any doubt.
spiminator 1 year ago
15:47 - Positing a God and being "open to a God" is a good example of trying to have your cake and eat it to. You're not saying there IS a God, yet your conclusion DEMANDS it. It's circular reasoning. Licona is being dishonest yet again because his premise not being open to "a God" but, rather, a very specific God that has a vested interest in Jesus. The claim is not falsifiable, which may not be a strict criteria for historical standards, but has to be considered on natural grounds.Its Theology
bernlin2000 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 God told him, right? :-P
bernlin2000 1 year ago
Licona says that he didn't decide in favor of the resurrection based on theological bent, yet he clearly indicates at 9:27 that he "agonized" over the decision and even says he could have went either direction. So the question there is: why did he choose the supernatural claim over something more natural, or simply saying "we just don't know". He HAS to recognize that he could only tip that scale to one side using theology...there is no other way when each side appears equally valid.
bernlin2000 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 ....especially if you consider that Jesus had a brother that looked a lot like him...
wlbarbo 1 year ago
Funny how the guy who alleges the use of Red Herrings is very partial to using them himself.
wlbarbo 1 year ago 4
@wlbarbo The guy?
d007ization 3 months ago
Jesus? No, Didymus Thomas!
wlbarbo 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710
Yes, it is especially common after a tragic loss or emotional upheaval. The disciples suffered a devastating loss. The person they thought was the messiah died a humiliating death...squashed like a bug. This would most certainly cause strong emotional reactions including grief..which very often leads to hallucinations.
bdwilson1000 1 year ago
OK Licona, we get your methodology point, move on to counter Erhman's points..
bwconklin 1 year ago
I usually like Bart, but "I don't believe in hallucinations?" Ouch. Oh well, he doesn't claim to know psychology or human physiology, so I won't be too hard on him.
HoleDweller 1 year ago
@HoleDweller I think he meant he doesn't take hallucinations as historical evidence.
loonietoonie0123 1 year ago
@Omnicron777 ... and red herrings.
umlud 1 year ago
you know Bart speaks the truth cos he states JESUS FROM PALESTINE not JESUS FROM IZRAEL....very very true man. -)
StuntWorkz 1 year ago
For the umpteenth time, the Bible proved unreliable.
Bart Ehrman is one of the many people who have proven those facts.
How can you believe if the bible only filled with contradictions? If so, what can you expect from the bible?
bravadowarrior 1 year ago
@bravadowarrior Bible still good for ideas for porn movies....
halakukhan 1 year ago
Comment removed
bravadowarrior 1 year ago
I know its just an assertion without going into details, but Bart's rationale is chock full of holes and very very weak.
uv777gr 1 year ago
@uv777gr Because of his acceptance o the historical Jesus? It is weak evidence, I agree. All in the gospels, no contemporary accounts and tampered Roman evidence. In ancient history you don't get the evidence you want. Ultimately this mix of history and religion is bound to be fraudulent. What could Licona say other than give straws bible literalists can hang to? Ehrman suffers from the same dilemma since he is speaking to same audience. The truth would leave both out of a job.
ITubeSheTubes 1 year ago
@ITubeSheTubes Why would you say they would both be out of a job? Do you work for a University?
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@uv777gr " know its just an assertion without going into details" yup just an assertion.!
SOAS007 1 year ago
Mike Licona can you not stick to the debate and stop side tracking, you seem incapable of debating effectively and you are clutching at straws. Please can we have the first hand testimony of jesus disciples? can we have the first hand testimony of pilate and the roman guards? NO because all records were written at least 70yrs after the event happened. in future i will simply scroll forward past your spiel
takewhole 1 year ago
Ehrman you are like antibiotic but religions are bacterias that are harmfull to human brain.They resist you.
Demcoy1 1 year ago
As a Christian, I can honestly say..........I can tell Bart Ehrman use to preach lol.
DStanTheMc 1 year ago
Bart sounds pissed
urbanh196398105 1 year ago
@urbanh196398105 Bart reasoning is very sound .
lizazoon 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
"James is still believing Jesus' is God and if He is such He can also resurrect, which James preached as leader of the J. church"
Here you are assigning later tradition, belief and practice to earlier people. There is nothing to suggest that James thought Jesus was God - either before or after the resurrection. It's a late 1st C construct that appears in John, 30 years after James' death. James maybe thought Jesus was blessed by God but not God himself and he didn't preach it.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Do you think Paul preached Jesus as God?
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott It certainly doesnt rule what out? I would say it supports both Jesus' miracles and resurrection.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
I was responding to your comment (below)
"What you are arguing here is that Jesus' miracles were in fact so strong and well attested that James believed even before the resurrection. That would still support resurrection as well"
It supports Jesus miracles but it doesn't really say anything about the resurrection. If you have already become a believer on day 1, then whether you see the risen Jesus on day 2 or not, you will still be a believer on day 3.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
Comment removed
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AKAKArnott If Jesus did miracles, why not a resurrection? Or to put it another way, Jesus' miracles are less historically verified than the resurrection, yet are you conceding that these miracles took place, then why not a resurrection as well
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
There's no reason why not. The debate has widened but if we rewind a bit, the thread was;
You cited the disciples/apostles sudden change and willingness to die martyrs' deaths as supporting the case for the resurrection.
I said that there is no evidence that any died martyrs deaths.
You cited James conversion as happening because of the resurrection.
I said there's no evidence for it and it could have taken place before. So it's not right to cite James as an example.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
Are you seriously maintaining that James disbelief has strong evidence for it and has multiple attestations? Of the passages you cited none even mention James by name and only 1/4 even provides a very weak suggestion that this might be so and it's really stretching it to even say that.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott No they dont mention James, they mention all of Jesus' brothers, of which james is one. At the very very least Mark 6 and John 7:5 provide two separate sources that attest to Jesus' brothers disbelief.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Also, the fact that none of his brothers were recorded at Jesus' death or burial speaks volumes. In addition, John takes the responsibility of taking care of Mary and not any of Jesus' half brothers, at least initially Jn. 19:25-27. So I do not think it is very weak, especially in ancient history.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott I just want to get back to this thread for a moment...So we have at least Jn and Mk referencing Jesus' brothers skepticism. I do not mean just James was the skeptic, but that all of his half-brothers, James, Judas, Simon, and Joseph were. Thus, the texts need not mention James directly, but all his brothers. We know that at the very least James became the leader in the Jerusalem church and that it Judas probably wrote Jude. They went from being skeptics to believers.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott I would also like to add another reason or line of evidence as to why scholars believe this is the principle of embarrassment, "People are not going to invent a story that's going to be embarrassing or potentially discrediting to them, and it would be particularly humiliating for a first-century rabbi not to have his own family as his followers."
"John's passage is particularly interesting. It suggests that his brothers had heard about his alleged miracles but didn't believe...in a
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 1/2
"the principle of embarrassment" you state this as though it's an overarching rule that applies in all cases, almost as like its a principle of physics or mechanics. It isn't even close. It's a very loose and weak generalization that (to quote Shakespeare) is "more honoured in the breach than in the observance".
You have suggested that it is accepted in courts. I strongly disagree. It might be a tactic used by attorneys to persuade but that's the extent of its acceptance.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott No certainly it is not a matter of fact and their are exceptions to the rule, but there is nothing to indicate that this is the case in either source. I think you would be very hard pressed to find any scholar or even lawyer for that matter who believe that it is very 'loose or weak' if you could find some I would be very interested. They are used in courts, to give the most basic example one need only watch Judge Judy, lol.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Attorneys would use it bc it is persuasive, but why is it persuasive? Again, people do not normally (normally, not always but normally) do not paint themselves in a negative light. IE a man would not normally come to court and admit that he had an affair, this certainly would not make him look very good at all. We can reasonably believe that he actually had an affair unless any new information is brought forward.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
2/2
People write things that paint themselves in an unflattering light all the time. We've both done it ourselves in this debate.
But returning to specifics James 'conversion' would paint the resurrection in a powerful light wouldn't it? It would only be embarrassing to James and as he didn't write any of the gospels and was dead before they were written it's hard to see how the 'principle' of embarrassment even if it were valid, is applicable in this case.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott I dont think that either of us have really used this principle in our discussions, but if we have done so it would have been done to convey the truth, no? Yes James' conversion would paint the resurrection in a better light, but this is nowhere made explicit in the NT documents. We do not see the writers saying, look James used to disbelieve, but now he does and it was bc of the resurrection. This arguement, as I have said, still would not negate the truth of the matter anyway.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Its quite applicable bc as I quoted Licona, ""People are not going to invent a story that's going to be embarrassing or potentially discrediting to them, and it would be particularly humiliating for a first-century rabbi not to have his own family as his followers." I mean we would certainly expect Jesus' own half brothers to believe in Him, yet they dont.
When we combine this principle and the fact that it is multiply attested, this fact becomes impressively historical.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
"People are not going to invent a story that's going to be embarrassing or potentially discrediting to them"
I think you're getting pre-occupied with the principle instead of the application. The embarrassment applies to the writer and only then if he is writing about himself. Jesus didn't write the gospels so how can you say that this principle (even if true) applies in this case.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott The best way to think of the principle of embarrassment is to ask this question: Why invent something that would be a stumbling block to those who you are trying to persuade?
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 1/2
I agree 100%. So let's examine why this would be a stumbling block to potential converts.
The people that are trying to be persuaded here are either unbelievers or people that have never heard of Jesus - yes?
They are being told that other people like them that didn't believe, even Jesus' family and Christian persecuters, were all convereted after the resurrection.
Then they are being told that they themselves who didn't previously believe now have a chance to convert.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
2/2 So I ask you - how in any way shape or form can this possibly be a stumbling block to potential converts?
It's a text book example of how to set your audience up.
It has echoes of the flim flam miracle cure potion salesman of the 1930's.
"Why should we buy this stuff from you?"
"Because I was once a cripple, just like you sir and after one bottle of miracle cure I'm as light on my feet as a teenager, It worked for me it can work for you too"
Do you see my point , It's persuasive.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Yes, I see your point. But it is pursuasive exactly bc of its truthfulness. There would be other ways to write a pursuasive story, but if we equate pursuasiveness with falsity, then we should not read any article that attempts to demonstrate a fact. If the miracle potion worked, then yes we should buy it. The thing is, John and Mk only say these things in brief passing, they dont go "HEY these guys disbelieved, but now they believe." They just say they didnt believe.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott More importantly, neither Jn nor Mk tell that Jesus' brothers later become followers of Jesus, they just mention their skepticism. So it does not have the persuasive, deceptive look that I think you are getting at. We know that they were converted through both Luke, Acts, Josephus, and others.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 1/3
"we would certainly expect Jesus' own half brothers to believe in Him, yet they dont", "it is multiply attested, this fact becomes impressively historical"
.
Ok, let's re-cap on this;
The multiple attestation that his brothers (we'll ignore James specifically for the moment) don't believe in him hangs on 3 passages:
Mark 3:21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself". (No brothers or disbelief)
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Okay sounds good, I think we are due for a re-cap. At the surface of it your case seems good, but I think you are oversimplifying the situation. What do I mean?
To begin with Mark 3:21. This was the one I was checking on bc I was unsure of the Greek. Each translation treats this verse a little bit different. The one you quoted from is the KJV. The ESV says 'family' and the NASB, which seems to have the most accurate Greek translation on this text says, "when His own people..."
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott This is usually considered to be Jesus' family and in fact the NASB that I used had an a footnote on the text and at the bottom it sats "or kinsmen." I also looked at some other sources as well to see what exactly the Greek meant. It seems as though it is referring to His family or kin. You can do some checking on this as well. I use Google books almost exclusively! jk. The context also alludes to the family showing up to actually lay hold of Him in 3:31.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott No mention of disbelief. Right, but they thought He was crazy or lost his mind. The next verse says that the scribes thought He was possessed. So they definitely not thinking Him to be the Messiah. Needless to say, we can infer that they were skeptical of such Messianic claims.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
He is 'beside himself' - it's a real stretch to say that means they thought he's lost his mind.
"the scribes thought He was possessed" - the scribes are not the issue here, it's Jesus' family that were talking about. We know the scribes didn't think he was the messiah, that's not in dispute.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott What do you think it meant? I think we can both agree that he was not literally standing beside Himself. The Greek word is "existemi" and is also used in Acts 26:24; 2 Cor. 5:13. In both contexts it is used for a person who has gone mad or is crazy. So we have the context and two other cases from two different authors who use it in the same context as well.
The scribes are not the issue I agree, but they give light to the context.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
2/3
Mark 6:4 "But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house" (A statement made to a crowd about prophets generally that does not mention his brothers, individually or as group)
John 7:5
"For neither did his brethren believe in him" (In this context brethren clearly means group of people around him not his brothers - John doesn't seem to know that Jesus has any brothers)
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Right now, I think MK 6:4 says the least of the three citations. But it is not just MK 6:4, but the whole context. Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Mar 6:6 And he marveled because of their unbelief...
I think we can imply a consistent story here. The unbelievers refer to Jesus' brothers and sisters.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
I'm sorry, I can accept different interpretations of certain phrases and words depending on the context, but to say that this passage says anything about Jesus' family not believing in him is just flat out wrong. It is the crowd that is talking to Jesus and they mention his bothers and sisters to show that he is a normal flesh and blood mortal with human siblings. That's all - there's nothing whatsoever to suggest that Jesus'family don't believbe in him in this passage.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott If it was the crowd, why is the word "adelphos" used? This word means brother either literally or metaphorically. Yet, if they were disbelievers then they are not brothers in Christ in the metaphorical sense. This is the strongest passage to me that James was a skeptic. It does not mean that he spoke out against Jesus or persecuted Him. Simply that He did not believe or follow Jesus during His earthly ministry.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott John 7:5 is pretty straight forward. I dont think you can say "*clearly* this means a group of people around Him..." The scholars dont believe that this conclusion is *clearly* the better solution. In any event, John distinguishes from mere "crowds" standing around Jesus in other passages (he says this phrase about 14x in his Gospel) .
John is simply mentioning Jesus' brothers disbelief, we should expect it to be rather brief due to its embarrassing aspect.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
I didn't say it was 'a crowd' I said the people around him. This is very close to the 'his own people' translation that you mentioned earlier. This is in Gallilee remember not Nazareth so why would his brothers be following him around in Gallilee, especially if they didn't believe in him?
The author of John was extremely profficient in Koine Greek. He would certainly have known how to say his 'brothers' or 'family if that had been his intention - yet he doesn't do this - why?
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
" John is simply mentioning Jesus' brothers disbelief, we should expect it to be rather brief due to its embarrassing aspect"
So why does he even mention it at all then if it's embarrssing? John misses out far more significant events in Jesus' lfe (according to the synpotic gospels). So why did he feel compelled to include this detail - it isn't necessary for the overall gospel message or for the particular story it appears in. Why not just say Jesus went to Judea?
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott It is relavent to the biography that John is providing. John may have known about the synoptics before he wrote and chose to write on other aspects of Jesus' life. We cannot look at what he did not record, but only what he did record. The context of John 7 is that there are those seeking to kill Jesus bc of His teachings, yet He still teaches as one with authority. Many were still upset with Him for healing on the Sabbath. His brothers seemingly daring Jesus is part of the event.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
What you are suggesting here makes no sense. If his brothers think he is crazy / insane / mad, why do they dare him to go and preach in Judea and put himself in mortal danger. This kind of mortal danger was exactly the kind of thing that you are saying they stopped him from doing in Mark when they went to lay hands on him. There is no consistency in your interpretation of these gospels.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 3/3
If Jesus brothers didn't believe in him, why are they following him around Galilee and not at home in Nazareth?
This multiply attested impressively historical fact has no support at all in the Bible.
This is my main gripe with Christianity - it's not even a question of if the Bible is true or not. It's Church leaders claiming stuff is in the Bible when it isn't , 'scholars' backing them up and the masses blindly believing and refusing to accept what's in black and white.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott I understand where you are coming from and why you think this. But I think you are mistaken bc there is much more to it than what you assert. People have dedicated their lives to studying the subject, and let me be very clear here, they aren't all Christians! I am willing to listen to someone who has studied Greek for 20 years to help explain the context of a Greek text.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 1/2
"People have dedicated their lives to studying the subject -they aren't all Christians! I am willing to listen to someone who has studied Greek for 20 years to help explain the context of a Greek text"
So which non Christian Greek scholars are you referring to here?
The Darby Translation is probablythe truest widely availableliteral translation around and that, as well as Wycliffe, Young's Literal andmost others uses 'brethren'.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Ehrman would be a perfect example. Gerd Ludemann another. The NASB and KJV/NKJV are considered, in the Bible Belt of the States, to be the most literal translations.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
2/2
The term brethren is used a lot in the NT. Sometimes it's clearly means blood brothers and other times it clearly doesn't. In John the absolute best you can say is that is it is unclear and open to interpretation.
Now let's not lose sight of what this debate isactually about. It's not about whether these events are true or not, it's about whether there is strong evidence to suggest that they were to a historical probabilityas apologists contend.......
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott I disagree, John is by far the most clear. When it is used metaphorically, it is done so to refer to a body of believers and not a body of unbelievers. So we are only left with the option that it is Jesus' brothers. Additionally, to say that the term brothers will never be reasonably certain to mean Jesus' literal brothers makes any claim that Jesus' brothers had done something unfalsifiable. Thus, we can see when everything is laid out the evidence is quite strong.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
...
I'd suggest that there isn't strong evidence for this. You cite only the Bible as a source and there is no single passage even in there that clearly supports your position. Had you not aleady had the belief that Jesus' brothers were skeptical you couldn't honestly look at what was written and conclude with any kind of surety that this was the case. I'm not saying that it isn't true - but if you believe it, it is a faith belief not one derived from strong evidence.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott You say I only cite the Bible as a source as though it is non-historical. Yes it reports supernatural events, but so does tacitus. If I only cited tacitus would that be wrong? I have not even been offering evidence for a supernatural event, but merely that Jesus' brothers were not followers during His lifetime. Moreover, the Bible is not one source but multiple sources from different authors. I would say that I am not 100% certain that James was a skeptic, but 95% and my faith
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
The Bible may be multiple sources from different authors - but the gospels aren't are they. Mark is the only truly independent source out of the 4, the other synoptics copy from him to a large degree. John does so to a far lesser degree but John was written 30-40 years after Mark and a long time after it was in circulation.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AKAKArnott As far as Jesus' Resurrection is concerned, 32 Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 Christian denominations in the RSV has a footnote for Mark 16:9-20 stating "Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to an end of verse 8 ...", indicating that the narrative of Jesus' Resurrection as described in Mark 16:9-20 is a lie.
FactualVSFictional 1 year ago 4
@FactualVSFictional hmm if that is the case they can keep changing it to suit their own interests!!!
salemslot777 1 year ago
@salemslot777
Christian scholars are changing footnotes in order to make the Resurrection look legendary? I suppose Christians would want to turn the Resurrection into legend rather than fact.
Nickcloudy 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott carries me the other 5% (if that makes sense).
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
If you ask my opinion I would say that (whether they actually were or not) during the 2nd half of the 1st C there was probably a belief by many that Jesus' brothers were skeptical. I base this not on the evidence you've provided but on what you might call a sister principle to the principle of embarrassment. The principal of credibilty.
The fact is that Matthew & Luke don't mention the skepticism of Jesus' brothers even though it's arguably suggested in Mark.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott Wouldn't it not be possible that Matthew and Luke leave it out precisely bc the think it is embarrassing? (however, Matt. does report a similar version of Mk. in Matt 13:55-57.).
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
They copy most of Mark but not this - why not?
It's because they realize that it is simply not credible to suggest that Jesus family (even Mary) could possibly be doubters if the event of the virgin birth as they depict it, actually took place - and they are correct. So they simply omit this from their gospels. It's no coincidence that the two gospels that suggest a skeptical family are the two that don't have virgin birth stories in them.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
Of all the gospels only Mark, to me, has any realism in it, even though it has been doctored and edited somewhat over time. When you strip down Mark you get a picture of Jesus as a man, not God in the flesh and not the subject of a miraculous birth. A preacher and prophet that wasn't resurrected and who died an agonizing death on the cross as he lost hi faith in God
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
..to save him. There was no resurrection and no post resurrection appearancesrch.-as the original version of Mark actually reads. The Church quite clearly in many cases (and the added on ending to mark is one) had no scruples about making stuff up to augment what their view of Jesus was or needed to be. The later the gospels get away from Mark the more fantastic and unbelievable they get until you end up with the Jesus of John - who is actually God himself.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott That is an interesting look in Mk. But what do you do with texts such as Mk. 2 where Jesus claims to forgive sins, something only God could do, so the Jews tried to stone him. Or what about Paul's works which come even earlier. They dont mention the virgin birth either, but they focus Jesus resurrection, atoning death, and Messiahship.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
Comment removed
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott To re-cap my argument:
1) It is an embarassing fact for the Gospels to include
2) None of Jesus' brothers are there during His crucifixion; and Jesus gives care of His mother over to John instead of to the next oldest son of Mary.
3) None of Jesus' brothers are reported as following or being discipled by Him during His lifetime. Yet they were reported as following Jesus after His death.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott
4) The interpretations of the multiple independent texts presented fit consistently and coherently with the above facts demonstrating the skepticism of Jesus' brothers (Remember, we are just demonstrating that they are skeptical of the who Jesus was during His lifetime.).
John Meier writes that unbelief on the part of several of Jesus' family members being found in multiple Gospels may have been embarrassing if not deeply offensive to a large part of the early church.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott sense, daring their brother to perform them in front of crowds..." Licona
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
This is where we have a fundamental difference of opinion and approach. I don't doubt that many scholars share this view of James. I don't necessarily believe that this opinion is wrong.
.
What I doubt is that this opinion is based on either fact or strong evidence.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott To make a quick clarification, it is not just many, but the large majority. upper 90% according to Habermas. We are discussing the facts elsewhere so I hope we can continue to discuss the evidence that you doubt.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
You misunderstand my position. I don't think James' Epistle was written by James based on my reading of it. But that's just my opinion - you may think it does, in which case you are quite justified in using it to support your contentions about James' conversion. So do you think it was written by James?
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott I have not cited James' epistle, nor do I plan to. We would do well to drop the epistle discussion I think.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100
Yeah of course - but without going into specifics would it be fair to say that you have some doubts over its authenticity - in terms of the identity of its author?
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott I have not studied it in any great detail. I am planning on listening to some lectures on it from various scholars, but I do believe it to be the Word of God as you probably guessed.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago
@CapsHockey100 2/2
Now I am not saying that your view is wrong.I'm saying that the evidence does not support it. It may not contradict it but it doesn't validate your position An example:
"To argue that James was not martyred [...] you would need to present some very strong evidence". We have words that say James was killed and they don't say why. It is for you to argue that it was martyrdom if the account doesn't actually say so.
AKAKArnott 1 year ago
@AKAKArnott As I also appreciate our discussion, probably more than any other one I have had, I would like to add that this sword that you have used against me cuts both ways. Your view would have an equal number of bias.' I do like that you say that we can say James was killed but we dont need to say why. I argue similarly that we can say Jesus died and was raised, but we dont need to say why, but clearly God is by far the best explanation.
CapsHockey100 1 year ago