I find Ehrman to be much more logically sound in this one than the last one. Jesus being raised from the dead is a faith based issue. We know the tomb was empty but we debate on how it got that way. A first century Laura Croft is highly unlikely due to the roman guard post at the tomb. These soldiers would have been put to death for abandoning their post. If I'm a roman guard I'm definitely slashing anyone who comes near that tomb. Ehrman sounds like an angry historian who hates miracles.
Resurrection, the blind having their sight restored, the deaf having had their hearing restored, and amputees having their hands and feet completely restored. Where can all this be found? Only in the bible. Not in our time
@tmat04 Good point. You know I always thought it was funny that god was so active back in the old days, but so unwilling to show up now. If I was alive in Jesus's time and got a chance to see his miracles, I wouldn't be an atheist and I wouldn't need faith. His followers didn't have faith, they saw the mother fucker walk on water and turn water into wine. So if its good enough for some primitives in ancient times, then where is god now? I would believe if I saw some evidence.
I really don't see why anyone would waste his precious time debating William Lane Craig. This man ignores all the compelling evidence against his religious belief, preferring to have faith in things that are Non-Existent. And he is incorrigible. So, why would I waste my time?
@tmat04 I totally agree. I mean he keeps on talking about how he is this great well know, influential philosopher who is active in the scholarly papers, but if you look at his citations he is actually rather pathetic. No one in the relevant fields takes him seriously and any one can see why because he is a propagandist, not an intellectual.
You're right. I watched the video: "Failure By Divine Design," by ProfMTH. And in this video ProfMTH stated it has been widely reported that William Lane Craig said if he was to spend weeks in front of Jesus' Tomb and witnessing his body decaying, "Craig would still believe Jesus arose from the dead." This is the kind of mind we are dealing with in William Lane Graig and other Christian Apologists. Minds that are impervious to proper reasoning.
I can't recall which video it was, but somewhere BE says that he needs the eye witness account of someone who is neutral/disinterested in what happened. So, he wants someone who saw the miracles of Jesus, heard his preaching, witness the crucifixion and Resurrection, and somehow not become a Christian, yet still write an accurate account, which, for some reason, was not accepted into the Bible. In essence, he demands you to proof the the Resurrection is both true and false at the same time!
I can't recall which video it was, but somewhere BE says that he needs the eye witness account of someone who is neutral/disinterested in what happened. So, he wants someone who saw the miracles of Jesus, heard his preaching, witness the crucifixion and Resurrection, and somehow not become a Christian, yet still write an accurate account, which, for some reason, was not accepted into the Bible. In essence, he demands you to proof the the Resurrection is both true and false at the same time!
I can't recall which video it was, but somewhere BE says that he needs the eye witness account of someone who is neutral/disinterested in what happened. So, he wants someone who saw the miracles of Jesus, heard his preaching, witness the crucifixion and Resurrection, and somehow not become a Christian, yet still write an accurate account, which, for some reason, was not accepted into the Bible. In essence, he demands you to proof the the Resurrection is both true and false at the same time!
I can't recall which video it was, but somewhere BE says that he needs the eye witness account of someone who is neutral/disinterested in what happened. So, he wants someone who saw the miracles of Jesus, heard his preaching, witness the crucifixion and Resurrection, and somehow not become a Christian, yet still write an accurate account, which, for some reason, was not accepted into the Bible. In essence, he demands you to proof the the Resurrection is both true and false at the same time!
Oh great, this guy is a typical atheist. They ask for evidence, but BEFORE THEY EVEN LOOK at the evidence, you've already decided that NOTHING can count as evidence, and no matter how strong an argument it is, it is not evidence because it is not naturalistic. So, there is no God, because there's no evidence for Him, and nothing can count as evidence for God, because He does not exist. Beautiful circular reasoning.
@Caerbanorg 1) I know the difference between the two, I just didn't know Ehrman's position as he didn't make it clear. However, since he was dismissing such powerful a powerful argument with a silly generic hand wave argument and with such passion, I assumed he's an atheist. 2) Many people who claim to be agnostic who claims to "not know if God exists", are really atheists who actively believe that God does not exist. You can quickly discover a persons position after a short debate.
@Hannodb1961 Yeah, the standard of evidence is pretty high. But wouldn't you expect it to be high if you're arguing for the existence of the most powerful being in the cosmos AND that he has a very specific and special plan for you and me? And wouldn't you expect such a powerful creature to have reams and reams of easily-verified evidence going for it?
@beriukay Yeah, the standard of evidence is pretty high. - The trouble is, the historical evidence IS very strong, but most people just reject it out of hand, because it does not fit in their world view. The way to test the standard account, is to try and come up with a coherent, naturalistic alternative. This has been tried for 2 centuries now, and all these alternatives fail on closer inspection. What better evidence do you need than the lack of a positive naturalistic alternative?
@beriukay "Yeah, the standard of evidence is pretty high" I can think of a couple of ways in which God can proof his existance:General revelation: In nature.Why is there something rather than nothing?But the atheist don't see creation as evidence.So God says, fair enough,lets riddle it with coincidence:The Goldilocks effect in cosmology,the genetic code.(Specification is always the product of mind)The atheist rages: Argument from ignorance, and science can only concider naturalistic explanations
@beriukay SO God say,ok,how about special revelation:We do something that nature does not ordinarily allow.The atheist say:Ah,but I didn't see it,so how can I know it's real?From my studies of nature,I know that is impossible,so i don't think it really happened.But God thought ahead: He made it happen in circumstances which would not allow for a naturalistic explanation. The Atheist goes:Nope, that's not evidence. So,if you have an excuse for every possibility, then evidence becomes irrelevant
@Hannodb1961 Why does god no longer do any miracles like the ones Jesus and the other bible characters did? If you just gave some evidence of the type that Jesus followers asked for and got then I would be a Christian. Its real convenient that we need faith now but back than god was well known, even wrestled a guy and parted the seas. Why do we need faith back but they did not?
@thesparitan What makes you think there are no more miracles? You just need to read the material from brother Andrew of Open Doors. God uses miracles to demonstrate his supremacy in areas where He was never known before, or to protect people who spread the gospel from dangerous situations, exactly as it happened in the bible.
@Hannodb1961 "What makes you think there are no more miracles? You just need to read the material from brother Andrew of Open Doors."
You need to listen to Ehrman's lecture again. No written testimony could ever be a reason to believe that the least probable event possible, a miracle, has occurred. All other possible explanations are more likely, including all manner of fraud and misunderstanding.
@666Infantryman Look them up... Get four Bibles and read from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (one for each Bible). The discrepancies and contradictions will become quite clear.
Mr Bart Ehrman said it best..Historians can only establish what probably happend in the past.... It was once thought that king David was probably a myth, kinda kind of like KIng Aurthur..but it was discovered a year or so ago that he infact did rule israel the time the Bible said he did. There are tons of artifacts underground..just think what we'll know in 20-30 years....
@lmslms7 In case you didnt click on my name to determine whether or not I am trolling this video, I quite obviously am. Maybe you should watch some of my videos and learn something.
@BlueSpirals : Boy if only we were all as smart as you...what a shame that I no one cares what your big idea is. When I wake up in the morning, I think...Hmm I want to learn something today. I better look up that douchebag from youtube who thinks he's got something to teach everyone.
Jesus was overlooking the scene of the "hanging" with his disciples. The Jews believed they had truly killed Jesus, because according to their Law, someone accused of blasphemy and killed thereafter was cursed by God. Tomb raiders stole the body in the middle of the night. Wild stories began to spread and you know the rest. God saved Jesus from the plot of the Jews.
What a difference in arguments!!!!!!!!! Clear, concise, logical, in short...intelligent and educated. A man that clearly is not deluded or mentally ill. Yes, the definition of a miracle is the LEAST likely event.
Please, people who really think that Craigs position is shared by any serious research are deluding themselves. The World is a lot bigger than you Think!
@eposien "people who really think that Craigs position is shared by any serious research are deluding themselves."
I have to disagree with you on that point. The vast majority of new testament scholars who are doing serious research believe most of what Dr. Craig is saying. They are simply going from the assumption that God exists and the bible authors believed what they wrote. Once that assumption is made, the rest is very serious research/scholarship.
@laflugantabastardo In her video course, "Holy Land Revealed", Dr. Jodi Magness pointed out that a "history" written in ancient times was typically embellished because that it what people expected, as this was one of their major forms of entertainment. A friend who also has a PhD in history, confirmed this and said it went as far as the early renaissance. It should then seem logical that the gospel writers wrote things to make the miracles more miraculous.
Thank you, you never know. Some people prefer to say: "No because this is what happened" instead of adding to the original point, which you did. ;-)
The embellishment of stories - well yeah, not a lot of people were literate at the time, so putting these stories on paper wasn't as popular. Add to that the fact that there were many Christian sects present even in the first century, each with their own agenda to push, and presto, you've got a breeding ground of amazing stories.
@laflugantabastardo However, we need to keep in mind that writing down the Gospels was intended for that 10% that *could* write and it *was* expected that the stories were embellished. Added to that is the fact, that the Gospels were most likely written by people other than the disciples.
I really liked your comment "breeding ground of amazing stories". Potentially, the various sects were simply trying to out-do each other and come up with the most amazing story as possible.
Indeed, there were the gnostics for example. People with some special insight into what God really wanted. Special knowledge from God himself - now there's raising the bar. I can't help but associate this with a playground attitude. "You'll know... but only if you enter out secret club." People blowing theological raspberries at each other.
Come and think of it, it hasn't changed much, has it?
@laflugantabastardo "People blowing theological raspberries at each other. Come and think of it, it hasn't changed much, has it?"
ROTFLOL!!!
I tried reading some of the gnostic gospels, but even with an open mind it was pretty hard to follow. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the Gospel of Judah. It has a very interesting perspective in that Judah was the only one in the "secret club" and was actually obeying orders when he "betrayed" Jesus. Dr. Ehrman wrote a book about its discovery.
If memory serves me correctly, Judah was so ashamed that he killed himself. However, it has been several years since I read it, so I wouldn't bet money on it either way.
@AnglicanApologist72 "Craig has never argued that just because Jesus' tomb was empty, he was therefore resurrected....never."
This does not change the inference of such an 'event'. For believers, this becomes part of the evidence that places Christ's resurrection as a historical event BECAUSE of the empty tomb. The psychological pressures of confirmation bias transform one possible historical event (the empty tomb) to a miraculous event (the resurrection). What springs to mind is credulity.
Ehrman likes to do the domino effect thing....a couple of differences exist so that means that there are "probably" a lot of mistakes. And if there are a lot of mistakes then that means that God's word isn't perfect and if it's not perfect then that means God is not perfect and the Holy thing goes right out the window. If Mark said Jesus wasn't risen and Matthew and John and Luke said he was, then there's a case but that's not the case. Time of the last meal? Small detail.
@stanfan27 "Ehrman likes to do the domino effect thing....a couple of differences exist so that means that there are "probably" a lot of mistakes"
Uhhhh, no. That's not what he is doing. He points out some of the major contradictions in the bible. If he were to point them all out, he would be there for hours. No probable about it, there *are* "a lot of mistakes".
Even a single mistake means the bible is not perfect, by definition.
The bible is fine for someone to cherry pick to find moral stories and such, but to hold them as inerrant, inspired, perfect, word of god? Absolutely not.
Nobody really believes in Zeus or Venus or ancient Egyptian gods anymore. It took thousands of years for those pagan 'religions' to wither into the unbelievable. Same will happen with Islam, Christianity, Hindu, and Buddism in good time. If the point is to believe, Jesus's followers might as well have told people to believe in UFO's-- that's the human test- whether or not you 'believe' and believe nowdays without proof. People eventualyl tire of that in favor of feeding their kids.Pretty simple
@ogilby5 Agreed, but so does Craig. The whole religion of Christianity literally turns on the veracity of what Ehrman says - pretty damn unsettling actually. Joseph McCabe, however, already covers a lot of this ground in his 1925 essay The Myth of the Resurrection.
In Middleeast some one sees a snake two feet long in his farm,than comes home the snake he tells is maybe 5 feet long.Same with Moses ,Jesus and Muhammed.
If anyone buys this, I challenge you to find three or four friends that you took a memorable trip with ten years back or so. Each of you write the events of the trip down separately and then compare your stories. See what similarities there are and what differences there are.
Dr. William Lane Craig cannot Lose against atheist arguments but he is weak on Proving the New testament, Jesus christ and his ressurection. Thats his only weakness.....
Heh, tales abound in Wallachia, Transylvania, and elsewhere of hundreds, if not thousands of graves being emptied. These are multiply attested, contemporary primary sources. If one believes in Jesus, one has almost infinitely more reason to believe in Nosferatu. Same goes for the yeti, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, and so forth. In fact, Frankenstein's monster, Swamp Thing, the Toxic Avenger, and others are more believable because the accounts are not self-contradictory.
this guy is an expert??? Where is the FACTS!!! Archeological, Source text refutations??? None its his OPINION! Miracle can't happen for they are outside the realm of nature??? LOL that would make it qualify for a miracle! I am waiting..for Facts forhis position...maybe to come
"Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past..." this is a true limitation of historians and the historical method. Suppose you don't know your date of birth and you live in a rural area where people are illiterate (like many people in many parts of the world today), then in the near future, historians will doubt that you ever existed!!! Today, many historians readily accept the reality of Socrates yet reject the Resurection of Jesus.
"Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past..." this is a true limitation of historians and the historical method. Suppose you don't know your date of birth and you live in a rural area where people are illiterate (like many people in many parts of the world today), then in the near future, historians will doubt that you ever existed!!! Today, many historians readily accept the reality of Socrates yet reject the Resurection of Jesus.
@turok25 My point is that historians readily acknowledge the historicity of Socrates based on so little material yet throw tons of doubts at Jesus the Christ despite the richness of the material, including eye-witnesses. Talk about biais!!! Beside, Jesus Christ has the most credible discourse on the after-life believe it or not! You'll find out! Extremely different from the ridiculous epics of Zeus or else.
This line of argumentation works great at the local atheist rally but not for scholarly New Testament debate. The question still stands, "What is the best explanation for the events that Dr. Craig described?" What Ehrman doesn't see is that his commitment to only allowing naturalistic explanations for the events surrounding the rise of the early Christian church is based not on any historical scrutiny but primarily on his naturalistic philosophical presuppositions.
Obviously, I wasn't there. What kind of question is that? If we are going to take that approach then you can't argue that Jesus resurrected because you weren't there neither. Now, if you look at the EVIDENCE then again, you can't make a good or reliable argument for Jesus' resurrection. On the other hand, all the "evidence" that you can bring are the gospels which are proved to be simply not reliable to say the least.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Again, Ehrman, just goes off ranting only this time with the discrepancies from the Gospels.
They could be explained point by point and don't contradict each other. I been studying on this for some time now and have done extensive research.
He knows fully well, Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, wrote different accounts from the same source. He mentions Matthew but never Luke, hmmm, that's interesting coming from an historian.
What is Ehrman's point and were are his arguments against Craig's?
@POC777 His point is that Craig places all his evidence on the bible, which is not an historical piece of literature. It contradicts itself, and has been altered over time we KNOW this from the 6000 earliest copies we have they are different and have been flawed by handwritten mistakes. They are not accurate and were not written by eye witnesses, so they are not verifiable. Craig places all of his evidence for the resurrection on eye witness accounts, which we have no actual record of.
Around 90% of the N.T is well established regarding the original text, and none of the other 10% that is questionable could radically alter our understanding of Jesus. It is simply disingenuous to suggest that textual variants and inconsistencies between the accounts have such a tremendous impact on their reliability. These relatively trivial inconsistencies in the narratives do not justify such skepticism. Some of the details may differ, but the Gospels agree on the significant events.
The miracle is the "least probable" explaination for a naturalist. Because they cannot and will not even hypothisize God and the supernatural/ miraculous.
If you think that makes you doubtful check out the blasphemer paul and his conflicting... lying accounts of his experience in damascus. He explain's himself 3 times and they all contradict each other.signs of a liar.you know a liar because they usually are cunning and make up so many lies they stumble over their own balony.Just type paul journey in damascus or paul lies on youtube. Im a muslim and welcome all dialogue
I like when Ehrman says "gahd" (9:03) like a preacher. Bolsters his cred as a man who studied at a bible college and was subjected to every argument before rejecting the resurrection as un-historical.
The Gospels explain exactly what will happen when God becomes manand lives among them.If Jesus was just a man obviously no miracle would have occured. But he was portrayed as God in flesh who did miracles.The samples in the Gospel accounts can be called extreme variant sample of events if Jesus was just a man. But with God's intervention , these miracles are normal.
There is a scientific explanation for miracles by Hugh ross which will help settle the issue.
The death of Jesus and subsequent resurrection depend on if Jesus was God who became man to give a perfect godly sacrifice besides being messiah who according to Jewish prophecies would not be killed. The secret is in the words of Jesus 1) "Isnt it written in the Law that God said ye (Jews) are gods". Why did Jesus says that which denies his own divinity. 2) Jesus disregards all his miracles and is prepared to perform the sign of Prophet Jonas. and miracle of Jonas was that he didnt die.
If a corpse is missing, do we assume that the person was resurrected from the dead or do we look for an explanation that is more consistent with human experience?
The guard was not placed on the tomb until the next day. [Matthew 27:62-66] So the first night Jesus' body was in an unguarded tomb. Anyone could have removed the body for any one of many possible reasons.
It would appear that there are many explantions for the empty tomb which are consistent with human experience.
yes, and the desciples died horrid deaths for a person who disappeared from a tomb? No. They died for one whom THEY claimed to have seen raised AFTER death, as that person had claimed. THAT is what the desciples died for.
@ebaltrace If you want to disprove the resurrection you have to do more than just explain the empty tomb, you have to explain the burial, the postmortem appearances, and the disciples sincere belief that God raised jesus from the dead. All the naturalistic explanations of these 4 facts have serious holes.
Nope! A missing body means it must have come back to life and then the body must have flown up to heaven!
Lol, but that's what they act like. Another funny thing WLC says sometimes is, if Jesus didn't leave his tomb, why hasn't the tomb been made into a shrine?
If you want to see some laughably stupid apologetics, check out "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Geisler. There is a list of reasons too stupid to even parody.
@ebaltrace Have you ever been in countries where there are public executions like Crucifixion, hanging or beheading, etc? Maybe you should go there to appreciate how these extreme public chastisements could dissuade even the most bold revolutionaries. How much more Jesus' disciples who were already fearfull of the political and religious authorities. Moreover, they were disabused of their belief that Jesus was the messiah. So how many people would readily die for what they believe to be a lie?
@flypejose Throughout history, and even in our own time, people have died for a lie. It is really not an unusual occurence, nor is it a convincing argument.
@ebaltrace Generalities won't help you this time!!! Any reasonable person know that nobody on this planet Earth would ever die for something they are persuaded to be false!!! Take your own example: As a self-proclaimed atheist, are you ready to expose your life or to die defending the Christian Faith that you literally qualify as a hoax? watching Jesus being captured and Cruxified truned the disciples into disabused men and women.
@ebaltrace "... Take your own example: As a self-proclaimed atheist, are you ready to expose your life or to die defending the Christian Faith that you literally qualify as a hoax? You know the answer is a resounding NO!!! You understand that I'm talking about persuassion only. Dying for a cause prove that you are persuaded about it, not that it is true or false. The disciples went from disabused coward to bold Christians cuz they saw Jesus alive!!! Do you get it?
@flypejose You keep on with the same lame argument. Do you remember the Japaneese Kamakasie pilots in World War II? They willingly gave their lives for their Emperor who they believed was the son of God. Did they die for the Truth or for a Lie? Maybe you are willing to die for the fictional Jesus story? The residents of Jonestown drank the poison Kool Aid because they believed in Jim Jones.
It's a very common experience for people to die for a lie.
@ebaltrace If you were at Jonestown in Guyana, you'd have drink the poison too!!! Armed men were all over the compound to force followers to drink. As for the disciples, they were DISABUSED that Jesus was the son of God; The son of God couldn't have perished unto the hand of their enemies (the Romans and religious authorities). Therefore, they began to deny him like Peter did and went into hiding cowardly. After they saw Jesus resurected they became the boldest people in all the Roman empire.
@ebaltrace Every military person in the world is conditioned to die for their nation regardless of their religious belief. The Kamikazie Pilots you alluding were no exception! that is the likely explanation rather than the belief that their emperor was a god! The disciples knew no RELIGIOUS SUICIDE in their culture. Rather, they believed the Messiah to be a Victorious King unlike Jesus dying on a Roman cross. They could not have sacrificed their life for him seeing him agonizing on the cross.
@ebaltrace, what you must realise is that the new Jewish day starts at sunset, unlike our Western day which begins after midnight. So say sunset occurred around 8 o'clock in the evening, 'the next day' would be anything after sunset at 8 PM. So say the conversation in 27:63 occured just before sunset (which it likely did as we are told the Jews RUSHED to get Jesus buried before sunset), the guard could have been placed just after 8PM (next day) so his tomb wouldn't have been unguarded for long.
@ebaltrace ohh so r u saying the fact that many people who for 1 hated jesus, didnt believe that he was God, and followers all saw him after his crusifiction??? explain that now everyone give this response a thumbs up just cause its correct
lol another person who is clearly leaving out critical information!
"If a corpse is missing, do we assume that the person was resurrected from the dead or do we look for an explanation that is more consistent with human experience?"
of course we look for an explanation, but when the deceased claimed he was God in the flesh, and then appeared after his death once again in the flesh to his people, i believe as any fair minded, logical person can be, that thats good evidence to
to believe, he was raised from the dead and is the son of God!.. and this is the position that nearly ever historian and 75% of scholars take after investigating the resurrection of Jesus, they all come to the agreement of the tomb being empty, and his appearances to the disciples.. and many of them define that as a resurrection!
this erhman fellow is utterly ridiculous lol.. hes 1 historian going against the majority agreement, and i mean majority as in 95%.. his arguments are that
the Gospels are in contradiction with each other lol.. a contradiction is the complete opposite of the first answer.. i agree the Gospels dont have all the same exact information written, but there not contradictions lol there just small changes!
@ebaltrace There are only many natural explanations for the empty tomb if you take the evidence of the empty tomb in isolation. But not if you take this evidence alongside the evidence of Jesus's multiple post-mortem appearances attested to in indepndent sources, and the evidence for the depth of belief in the truth of the resurection among his early disciples, even though (and this is crucial) the disciples had every reason NOT to believe the resurrection as it contradicted their Jewish faith
@relarerfhjk Post Mortem appearances? Mary Magdalene was a woman with 7 demons. We would say she was mentally ill by today's standards and not a credible witness. Paul claims 500 brethren when Acts says Jesus only had 120 followers. According to the Bible Jesus only showed himself after death to his own followers. Why? Especially when he promised his generation that they would see him after he rose from the dead. Throughout History people have died for causes that were WRONG.
the problem with people taking the non-religious stance is...anything is possible. we can walk through walls. we could live in the matrix. i could evolve into a dinosaur tomorrow. some things are so improbable that we just slap the word impossible on it (otherwise everything needs a disclaimer to be logically correct).
sometimes, we just need the best explanation, as craig says. except, raising from the dead isn't the best. bart gives an alternative (which he also doesn't believe).
Dawkins is a consumate scientist. He must have 'scientific evidence', not presupposing a God of the Gaps.
Well the same is true for Ehrman. He is a consumate historian who can't consider or entertain the notion of miracles when doing history. This makes him a good historian, and I understand his position and respect it highly
But A. There are still facts to be explained
and B There can be evidence from the Holy Spirit.
C as Ehrman said, miracles might be possible, only improbable
"God is fiction and never makes any claim to exist, man (men) make the claim. Christianity is merely one example of thousands of religions that claim knowledge of god. There is nothing unique about Christianity when compared to any religion. Why don't you believe in Islam?" Perhaps one of the most naive statements I've ever heard! Perhaps a little reading in comparative religions will provide the requisite education before you lay out accusations.
You just make things up... you are an apologist who already has the "truth" in your head and refuse to listen/consider/comprehend any argument to the contrary. Proof. Did you listed to what Ehrman said? If you did you did not understand it.
@mccabe1958 you are an atheist who already has the "truth" in your head and refuse to listen/consider/comprehend any argument to the contrary. Proof. Did you listed to what Dr Craig said? If you did you did not understand it.
And differences do not automatically confer error. My family would all tell me they care about me in different ways and each of them would be equally valid.
Your statement is 100% incorrect. If two statements differ one is in error. Pretty simple stuff really, why are you struggling with this idea? Your family example is a bad one, and not an example of differing stories.
In relationships, what is the central component that confers knowledge/understanding of that person? It is knowing them. I do not base my relationship with my brother based on several biographies of him, but because I interact with him and know him. This is how it is with God, direct communication is central, the rest is secondary.
If God is who he claims to be, then the problem lies with this man's thinking. If God is not who he claims to be, then Christianity would never have come into existance.
God is fiction and never makes any claim to exist, man (men) make the claim. Christianity is merely one example of thousands of religions that claim knowledge of god. There is nothing unique about Christianity when compared to any religion. Why don't you believe in Islam?
as a historian bart should know better. an argument from silence is not an argument at all. if two authors depict an event and give more information about the event. it dosen't mean they are contradictive. it just means there is more discription of that event.
well im asking for you to provide for me a contradiction in the bible. i can argue the speakers if u want to use his.. but have you found any contradictions for yourself. or only the ones he provided?
His argument is ok, and pretty much the correct one when you are discussing religion from such a stupid perspective as Craig's one, but the presentation certainly suffers...
U dont think Ehrman sounds nervous but he has a hard job, discussing religion with Craig is not easy because all he says is that there the true and then talks about Space
He tries to come across as being highly objective, but it seems to me that the main force driving his interpretation of the evidence is a reluctance to believe in miracles. If you are inclined to not believe in miracles then petty discrepencies in the eyewitness accounts, (like how many women were really at the tomb), are going to be magnified larger than they need to be.
This delusion is eroding due to the tranfer of knowledge and reduction of Godly ignorance. It is about time we grew out of this ridiculous superstition that has retarded every positive human endeavor since it's inception.
If the rebirth was dependent on intellect or faith or understanding or theological study or conviction or repentance then it would be a secular conversion, the rebirth in man is only due to election so that mouths can be shut. There is no boasting on ability. This man has proved beyond any doubt that the bible does not create the rebirth or even faith, but in his case it produced more skepticism
Does Ehrman consider himself to be a Christian? I can't grasp how he could, though many people do while they don't believe in the Resurrection. I don't dismiss them, I just don't understand where they're coming from.
Basically, the more ertaordinary a claim, the more extraordinary the evidence that is required. Bad news for all Christians im afraid. How many of the fools even REALISE that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didnt write the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!
I find Ehrman to be much more logically sound in this one than the last one. Jesus being raised from the dead is a faith based issue. We know the tomb was empty but we debate on how it got that way. A first century Laura Croft is highly unlikely due to the roman guard post at the tomb. These soldiers would have been put to death for abandoning their post. If I'm a roman guard I'm definitely slashing anyone who comes near that tomb. Ehrman sounds like an angry historian who hates miracles.
GrizzleBitBabyHead 2 months ago
@GrizzleBitBabyHead
"Ehrman sounds like and angry historian who hates miracles."
Question: Where is the evidence to support resurrection or other claims of miracles the bible speaks of?
tmat04 1 month ago
Con't....If these things actually took place, why is it that they don't continue on in our time? I just don't get it with Christianity!
tmat04 2 months ago
Resurrection, the blind having their sight restored, the deaf having had their hearing restored, and amputees having their hands and feet completely restored. Where can all this be found? Only in the bible. Not in our time
tmat04 2 months ago
@tmat04 Good point. You know I always thought it was funny that god was so active back in the old days, but so unwilling to show up now. If I was alive in Jesus's time and got a chance to see his miracles, I wouldn't be an atheist and I wouldn't need faith. His followers didn't have faith, they saw the mother fucker walk on water and turn water into wine. So if its good enough for some primitives in ancient times, then where is god now? I would believe if I saw some evidence.
thesparitan 2 months ago
@thesparitan
However, I do believe there is a creator. I just don't believe he, she or it is a "Christian God."
tmat04 2 months ago
@tmat04 Are you a deist?
thesparitan 2 months ago
@thesparitan
Yes, I am!
tmat04 2 months ago
@tmat04 Cool. I am glad I got it right.
thesparitan 2 months ago
@thesparitan
I really don't see why anyone would waste his precious time debating William Lane Craig. This man ignores all the compelling evidence against his religious belief, preferring to have faith in things that are Non-Existent. And he is incorrigible. So, why would I waste my time?
tmat04 1 month ago
@tmat04 I totally agree. I mean he keeps on talking about how he is this great well know, influential philosopher who is active in the scholarly papers, but if you look at his citations he is actually rather pathetic. No one in the relevant fields takes him seriously and any one can see why because he is a propagandist, not an intellectual.
thesparitan 1 month ago
@thesparitan
You're right. I watched the video: "Failure By Divine Design," by ProfMTH. And in this video ProfMTH stated it has been widely reported that William Lane Craig said if he was to spend weeks in front of Jesus' Tomb and witnessing his body decaying, "Craig would still believe Jesus arose from the dead." This is the kind of mind we are dealing with in William Lane Graig and other Christian Apologists. Minds that are impervious to proper reasoning.
tmat04 1 month ago
I can't recall which video it was, but somewhere BE says that he needs the eye witness account of someone who is neutral/disinterested in what happened. So, he wants someone who saw the miracles of Jesus, heard his preaching, witness the crucifixion and Resurrection, and somehow not become a Christian, yet still write an accurate account, which, for some reason, was not accepted into the Bible. In essence, he demands you to proof the the Resurrection is both true and false at the same time!
Hannodb1961 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can't recall which video it was, but somewhere BE says that he needs the eye witness account of someone who is neutral/disinterested in what happened. So, he wants someone who saw the miracles of Jesus, heard his preaching, witness the crucifixion and Resurrection, and somehow not become a Christian, yet still write an accurate account, which, for some reason, was not accepted into the Bible. In essence, he demands you to proof the the Resurrection is both true and false at the same time!
Hannodb1961 4 months ago
I can't recall which video it was, but somewhere BE says that he needs the eye witness account of someone who is neutral/disinterested in what happened. So, he wants someone who saw the miracles of Jesus, heard his preaching, witness the crucifixion and Resurrection, and somehow not become a Christian, yet still write an accurate account, which, for some reason, was not accepted into the Bible. In essence, he demands you to proof the the Resurrection is both true and false at the same time!
Hannodb1961 4 months ago
I can't recall which video it was, but somewhere BE says that he needs the eye witness account of someone who is neutral/disinterested in what happened. So, he wants someone who saw the miracles of Jesus, heard his preaching, witness the crucifixion and Resurrection, and somehow not become a Christian, yet still write an accurate account, which, for some reason, was not accepted into the Bible. In essence, he demands you to proof the the Resurrection is both true and false at the same time!
Hannodb1961 4 months ago
Oh great, this guy is a typical atheist. They ask for evidence, but BEFORE THEY EVEN LOOK at the evidence, you've already decided that NOTHING can count as evidence, and no matter how strong an argument it is, it is not evidence because it is not naturalistic. So, there is no God, because there's no evidence for Him, and nothing can count as evidence for God, because He does not exist. Beautiful circular reasoning.
Hannodb1961 4 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Ehrman is not an Atheist, he is a Agnostic. Look it up if you don't know what an Agnostic is.
Caerbanorg 4 months ago
@Caerbanorg 1) I know the difference between the two, I just didn't know Ehrman's position as he didn't make it clear. However, since he was dismissing such powerful a powerful argument with a silly generic hand wave argument and with such passion, I assumed he's an atheist. 2) Many people who claim to be agnostic who claims to "not know if God exists", are really atheists who actively believe that God does not exist. You can quickly discover a persons position after a short debate.
Hannodb1961 4 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Yeah, the standard of evidence is pretty high. But wouldn't you expect it to be high if you're arguing for the existence of the most powerful being in the cosmos AND that he has a very specific and special plan for you and me? And wouldn't you expect such a powerful creature to have reams and reams of easily-verified evidence going for it?
beriukay 4 months ago
@beriukay Yeah, the standard of evidence is pretty high. - The trouble is, the historical evidence IS very strong, but most people just reject it out of hand, because it does not fit in their world view. The way to test the standard account, is to try and come up with a coherent, naturalistic alternative. This has been tried for 2 centuries now, and all these alternatives fail on closer inspection. What better evidence do you need than the lack of a positive naturalistic alternative?
Hannodb1961 4 months ago
@beriukay "Yeah, the standard of evidence is pretty high" I can think of a couple of ways in which God can proof his existance:General revelation: In nature.Why is there something rather than nothing?But the atheist don't see creation as evidence.So God says, fair enough,lets riddle it with coincidence:The Goldilocks effect in cosmology,the genetic code.(Specification is always the product of mind)The atheist rages: Argument from ignorance, and science can only concider naturalistic explanations
Hannodb1961 4 months ago
@beriukay SO God say,ok,how about special revelation:We do something that nature does not ordinarily allow.The atheist say:Ah,but I didn't see it,so how can I know it's real?From my studies of nature,I know that is impossible,so i don't think it really happened.But God thought ahead: He made it happen in circumstances which would not allow for a naturalistic explanation. The Atheist goes:Nope, that's not evidence. So,if you have an excuse for every possibility, then evidence becomes irrelevant
Hannodb1961 4 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Why does god no longer do any miracles like the ones Jesus and the other bible characters did? If you just gave some evidence of the type that Jesus followers asked for and got then I would be a Christian. Its real convenient that we need faith now but back than god was well known, even wrestled a guy and parted the seas. Why do we need faith back but they did not?
thesparitan 2 months ago
@thesparitan What makes you think there are no more miracles? You just need to read the material from brother Andrew of Open Doors. God uses miracles to demonstrate his supremacy in areas where He was never known before, or to protect people who spread the gospel from dangerous situations, exactly as it happened in the bible.
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hannodb1961 "What makes you think there are no more miracles? You just need to read the material from brother Andrew of Open Doors."
You need to listen to Ehrman's lecture again. No written testimony could ever be a reason to believe that the least probable event possible, a miracle, has occurred. All other possible explanations are more likely, including all manner of fraud and misunderstanding.
Gnomefro 2 months ago in playlist Craig-Ehrman Debate
Comment removed
Hannodb1961 4 months ago
@666Infantryman Look them up... Get four Bibles and read from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (one for each Bible). The discrepancies and contradictions will become quite clear.
atheistram 5 months ago
@666Infantryman you can try croadwarriors channel if you like for those contradictions.
matrixlone 6 months ago
Mr Bart Ehrman said it best..Historians can only establish what probably happend in the past.... It was once thought that king David was probably a myth, kinda kind of like KIng Aurthur..but it was discovered a year or so ago that he infact did rule israel the time the Bible said he did. There are tons of artifacts underground..just think what we'll know in 20-30 years....
razorpayne13 7 months ago
Jesus resurrected because I can feel it in my heart. TRY and debunk that.
BlueSpirals 7 months ago
@BlueSpirals What does it feel like? I can't feel that in my heart.. strange.
lmslms7 6 months ago
@lmslms7 It feels like jeeeeeeeeeeesus
BlueSpirals 6 months ago
@BlueSpirals Ridiculous.
lmslms7 6 months ago
@lmslms7 uhm its not ridiculous my heart is never wrong.
BlueSpirals 6 months ago
@BlueSpirals This is like arguing with an eleven year old.
lmslms7 6 months ago
@lmslms7 In case you didnt click on my name to determine whether or not I am trolling this video, I quite obviously am. Maybe you should watch some of my videos and learn something.
BlueSpirals 6 months ago
@BlueSpirals : Boy if only we were all as smart as you...what a shame that I no one cares what your big idea is. When I wake up in the morning, I think...Hmm I want to learn something today. I better look up that douchebag from youtube who thinks he's got something to teach everyone.
MrSB1274 6 months ago
If a story has plot holes, contradictions, strange creatures ( dragons,angels), and is unreliable to history then it is bad historical fiction.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 8 months ago
How do I know that this wasn't uploaded by drcraigvideos? Because there are sensible comments that haven't been deleted.
Alexdurrant7 9 months ago
@Alexdurrant7 priceless lol. so true
lordrazr 6 months ago
Does Bart Ehrman realize he's mic'd and has no reason to shout?!
thisisaguy 10 months ago
Jesus was overlooking the scene of the "hanging" with his disciples. The Jews believed they had truly killed Jesus, because according to their Law, someone accused of blasphemy and killed thereafter was cursed by God. Tomb raiders stole the body in the middle of the night. Wild stories began to spread and you know the rest. God saved Jesus from the plot of the Jews.
tadpoleposition 11 months ago
What a difference in arguments!!!!!!!!! Clear, concise, logical, in short...intelligent and educated. A man that clearly is not deluded or mentally ill. Yes, the definition of a miracle is the LEAST likely event.
blublu451 11 months ago
Please, people who really think that Craigs position is shared by any serious research are deluding themselves. The World is a lot bigger than you Think!
eposien 1 year ago
@eposien "people who really think that Craigs position is shared by any serious research are deluding themselves."
I have to disagree with you on that point. The vast majority of new testament scholars who are doing serious research believe most of what Dr. Craig is saying. They are simply going from the assumption that God exists and the bible authors believed what they wrote. Once that assumption is made, the rest is very serious research/scholarship.
jimmo42 11 months ago
People who cannot believe that stories get twisted as they are being told from person to person has never watched Fox News.
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
@laflugantabastardo In her video course, "Holy Land Revealed", Dr. Jodi Magness pointed out that a "history" written in ancient times was typically embellished because that it what people expected, as this was one of their major forms of entertainment. A friend who also has a PhD in history, confirmed this and said it went as far as the early renaissance. It should then seem logical that the gospel writers wrote things to make the miracles more miraculous.
jimmo42 11 months ago
@jimmo42
...so I guess you're confirming my point?
laflugantabastardo 11 months ago
@laflugantabastardo Yes, most definitely!
jimmo42 11 months ago
@jimmo42
Thank you, you never know. Some people prefer to say: "No because this is what happened" instead of adding to the original point, which you did. ;-)
The embellishment of stories - well yeah, not a lot of people were literate at the time, so putting these stories on paper wasn't as popular. Add to that the fact that there were many Christian sects present even in the first century, each with their own agenda to push, and presto, you've got a breeding ground of amazing stories.
laflugantabastardo 11 months ago
@laflugantabastardo However, we need to keep in mind that writing down the Gospels was intended for that 10% that *could* write and it *was* expected that the stories were embellished. Added to that is the fact, that the Gospels were most likely written by people other than the disciples.
I really liked your comment "breeding ground of amazing stories". Potentially, the various sects were simply trying to out-do each other and come up with the most amazing story as possible.
jimmo42 11 months ago
@jimmo42
Indeed, there were the gnostics for example. People with some special insight into what God really wanted. Special knowledge from God himself - now there's raising the bar. I can't help but associate this with a playground attitude. "You'll know... but only if you enter out secret club." People blowing theological raspberries at each other.
Come and think of it, it hasn't changed much, has it?
laflugantabastardo 11 months ago
@laflugantabastardo "People blowing theological raspberries at each other. Come and think of it, it hasn't changed much, has it?"
ROTFLOL!!!
I tried reading some of the gnostic gospels, but even with an open mind it was pretty hard to follow. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the Gospel of Judah. It has a very interesting perspective in that Judah was the only one in the "secret club" and was actually obeying orders when he "betrayed" Jesus. Dr. Ehrman wrote a book about its discovery.
jimmo42 11 months ago
@jimmo42
Did Jesus also tell Judas to kill himself afterwards, or was that his own choice?
laflugantabastardo 11 months ago
@laflugantabastardo
If memory serves me correctly, Judah was so ashamed that he killed himself. However, it has been several years since I read it, so I wouldn't bet money on it either way.
jimmo42 11 months ago
@laflugantabastardo
Yes, most definitely!
jimmo42 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnglicanApologist72 "Craig has never argued that just because Jesus' tomb was empty, he was therefore resurrected....never."
This does not change the inference of such an 'event'. For believers, this becomes part of the evidence that places Christ's resurrection as a historical event BECAUSE of the empty tomb. The psychological pressures of confirmation bias transform one possible historical event (the empty tomb) to a miraculous event (the resurrection). What springs to mind is credulity.
vryc 1 year ago
I fully recommend reading Bart Ehrman - he is a great writer.
he makes an interesting case here - but he isn't a my fave speaker to listen too... he is a bit shrill on the ears!!!
SAHBfan 1 year ago
Ehrman likes to do the domino effect thing....a couple of differences exist so that means that there are "probably" a lot of mistakes. And if there are a lot of mistakes then that means that God's word isn't perfect and if it's not perfect then that means God is not perfect and the Holy thing goes right out the window. If Mark said Jesus wasn't risen and Matthew and John and Luke said he was, then there's a case but that's not the case. Time of the last meal? Small detail.
stanfan27 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stanfan27 "Ehrman likes to do the domino effect thing....a couple of differences exist so that means that there are "probably" a lot of mistakes"
Uhhhh, no. That's not what he is doing. He points out some of the major contradictions in the bible. If he were to point them all out, he would be there for hours. No probable about it, there *are* "a lot of mistakes".
Even a single mistake means the bible is not perfect, by definition.
jimmo42 11 months ago
I like Bart's theories. Even though some seem pretty far fetched, they are still more PROBABLE than a MIRACLE.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
The bible is fine for someone to cherry pick to find moral stories and such, but to hold them as inerrant, inspired, perfect, word of god? Absolutely not.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
How does Craig make a living out of being destroyed in debates ???
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
07:50 Wonder what the probability of Jesus was STILL ALIVE when they put in the sepulcher?
dado0876 1 year ago
Nobody really believes in Zeus or Venus or ancient Egyptian gods anymore. It took thousands of years for those pagan 'religions' to wither into the unbelievable. Same will happen with Islam, Christianity, Hindu, and Buddism in good time. If the point is to believe, Jesus's followers might as well have told people to believe in UFO's-- that's the human test- whether or not you 'believe' and believe nowdays without proof. People eventualyl tire of that in favor of feeding their kids.Pretty simple
mitstop1 1 year ago
The Milwaukee Brewers making it to the World Series would be a miracle.
SamonMarquis 1 year ago
Ehrman is really putting a very powerful argument and very convincing
ogilby5 1 year ago
@ogilby5 Agreed, but so does Craig. The whole religion of Christianity literally turns on the veracity of what Ehrman says - pretty damn unsettling actually. Joseph McCabe, however, already covers a lot of this ground in his 1925 essay The Myth of the Resurrection.
misterzonker2584 1 year ago
In Middleeast some one sees a snake two feet long in his farm,than comes home the snake he tells is maybe 5 feet long.Same with Moses ,Jesus and Muhammed.
Demcoy1 1 year ago
If anyone buys this, I challenge you to find three or four friends that you took a memorable trip with ten years back or so. Each of you write the events of the trip down separately and then compare your stories. See what similarities there are and what differences there are.
Msjrward 1 year ago
There is NO DEBATE it just never happened,,,,,,,,,FACT
npf2135 1 year ago
Dr. William Lane Craig cannot Lose against atheist arguments but he is weak on Proving the New testament, Jesus christ and his ressurection. Thats his only weakness.....
AVeLLiiii 1 year ago
oh fuck shit that was amazing
OpakeArawra2 1 year ago
Heh, tales abound in Wallachia, Transylvania, and elsewhere of hundreds, if not thousands of graves being emptied. These are multiply attested, contemporary primary sources. If one believes in Jesus, one has almost infinitely more reason to believe in Nosferatu. Same goes for the yeti, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, and so forth. In fact, Frankenstein's monster, Swamp Thing, the Toxic Avenger, and others are more believable because the accounts are not self-contradictory.
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
this guy is an expert??? Where is the FACTS!!! Archeological, Source text refutations??? None its his OPINION! Miracle can't happen for they are outside the realm of nature??? LOL that would make it qualify for a miracle! I am waiting..for Facts forhis position...maybe to come
gpt500 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past..." this is a true limitation of historians and the historical method. Suppose you don't know your date of birth and you live in a rural area where people are illiterate (like many people in many parts of the world today), then in the near future, historians will doubt that you ever existed!!! Today, many historians readily accept the reality of Socrates yet reject the Resurection of Jesus.
flypejose 1 year ago
"Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past..." this is a true limitation of historians and the historical method. Suppose you don't know your date of birth and you live in a rural area where people are illiterate (like many people in many parts of the world today), then in the near future, historians will doubt that you ever existed!!! Today, many historians readily accept the reality of Socrates yet reject the Resurection of Jesus.
flypejose 1 year ago
@flypejose
Socrates does not determine your fate in the afterlife. BIG difference but not to apologists it seems!
turok25 1 year ago
@turok25 My point is that historians readily acknowledge the historicity of Socrates based on so little material yet throw tons of doubts at Jesus the Christ despite the richness of the material, including eye-witnesses. Talk about biais!!! Beside, Jesus Christ has the most credible discourse on the after-life believe it or not! You'll find out! Extremely different from the ridiculous epics of Zeus or else.
flypejose 1 year ago
This line of argumentation works great at the local atheist rally but not for scholarly New Testament debate. The question still stands, "What is the best explanation for the events that Dr. Craig described?" What Ehrman doesn't see is that his commitment to only allowing naturalistic explanations for the events surrounding the rise of the early Christian church is based not on any historical scrutiny but primarily on his naturalistic philosophical presuppositions.
dfelcman 1 year ago
I'm 100% with Ehrman. And I'm gonna add that Jesus's resurrection was and still is a HUGE LIE!!!
leondponce1 1 year ago
@leondponce1
How can you say its a huge lie, was you there ? are you athiest ?
isaiahact 1 year ago
@isaiahact
Obviously, I wasn't there. What kind of question is that? If we are going to take that approach then you can't argue that Jesus resurrected because you weren't there neither. Now, if you look at the EVIDENCE then again, you can't make a good or reliable argument for Jesus' resurrection. On the other hand, all the "evidence" that you can bring are the gospels which are proved to be simply not reliable to say the least.
ateodeponce 1 year ago
@ateodeponce
Jesus is historically facts.
isaiahact 1 year ago
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
Wake up buttercups! You have been had!
matmetmatmet 1 year ago
Again, Ehrman, just goes off ranting only this time with the discrepancies from the Gospels.
They could be explained point by point and don't contradict each other. I been studying on this for some time now and have done extensive research.
He knows fully well, Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, wrote different accounts from the same source. He mentions Matthew but never Luke, hmmm, that's interesting coming from an historian.
What is Ehrman's point and were are his arguments against Craig's?
POC777 1 year ago
@POC777 His point is that Craig places all his evidence on the bible, which is not an historical piece of literature. It contradicts itself, and has been altered over time we KNOW this from the 6000 earliest copies we have they are different and have been flawed by handwritten mistakes. They are not accurate and were not written by eye witnesses, so they are not verifiable. Craig places all of his evidence for the resurrection on eye witness accounts, which we have no actual record of.
TheAndrewMan1000 1 year ago
Around 90% of the N.T is well established regarding the original text, and none of the other 10% that is questionable could radically alter our understanding of Jesus. It is simply disingenuous to suggest that textual variants and inconsistencies between the accounts have such a tremendous impact on their reliability. These relatively trivial inconsistencies in the narratives do not justify such skepticism. Some of the details may differ, but the Gospels agree on the significant events.
astronomer747 1 year ago
@POC777
I think a very good explanation is small descrepencies....I forgot what it is called
for instance, my friend tells me "he feels sorry for me" and a friend tells me how my friend's "pity" for me later on. I forgot the name though.
I don't think Ehrman is ranting but he is acting on his past....
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
Where are Jesus bones?
POC777 1 year ago
The miracle is the "least probable" explaination for a naturalist. Because they cannot and will not even hypothisize God and the supernatural/ miraculous.
arktheball 2 years ago
If you think that makes you doubtful check out the blasphemer paul and his conflicting... lying accounts of his experience in damascus. He explain's himself 3 times and they all contradict each other.signs of a liar.you know a liar because they usually are cunning and make up so many lies they stumble over their own balony.Just type paul journey in damascus or paul lies on youtube. Im a muslim and welcome all dialogue
ryukenb2k 2 years ago
I like when Ehrman says "gahd" (9:03) like a preacher. Bolsters his cred as a man who studied at a bible college and was subjected to every argument before rejecting the resurrection as un-historical.
drfoxcourt 2 years ago
The resurrection of JESUS is an act of God in history. The eyewitness documents claim it to be so.Putting faith also needs God's intervention.
stsamueldr 2 years ago
Bart doesn't make a good case because his theoryof how Newtestament came about has no evidence. That's his unproved hypothesis at best.
stsamueldr 2 years ago
The Gospels explain exactly what will happen when God becomes manand lives among them.If Jesus was just a man obviously no miracle would have occured. But he was portrayed as God in flesh who did miracles.The samples in the Gospel accounts can be called extreme variant sample of events if Jesus was just a man. But with God's intervention , these miracles are normal.
There is a scientific explanation for miracles by Hugh ross which will help settle the issue.
stsamueldr 2 years ago
Dr.Bart gives an alternative for which there is no evidence.What sort of historian is he? He is spinning a story which does not have any evidence .
stsamueldr 2 years ago
The death of Jesus and subsequent resurrection depend on if Jesus was God who became man to give a perfect godly sacrifice besides being messiah who according to Jewish prophecies would not be killed. The secret is in the words of Jesus 1) "Isnt it written in the Law that God said ye (Jews) are gods". Why did Jesus says that which denies his own divinity. 2) Jesus disregards all his miracles and is prepared to perform the sign of Prophet Jonas. and miracle of Jonas was that he didnt die.
nibiruin 2 years ago
If a corpse is missing, do we assume that the person was resurrected from the dead or do we look for an explanation that is more consistent with human experience?
The guard was not placed on the tomb until the next day. [Matthew 27:62-66] So the first night Jesus' body was in an unguarded tomb. Anyone could have removed the body for any one of many possible reasons.
It would appear that there are many explantions for the empty tomb which are consistent with human experience.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago 7
yes, and the desciples died horrid deaths for a person who disappeared from a tomb? No. They died for one whom THEY claimed to have seen raised AFTER death, as that person had claimed. THAT is what the desciples died for.
arktheball 2 years ago
@ebaltrace If you want to disprove the resurrection you have to do more than just explain the empty tomb, you have to explain the burial, the postmortem appearances, and the disciples sincere belief that God raised jesus from the dead. All the naturalistic explanations of these 4 facts have serious holes.
cravenns 1 year ago
@ebaltrace
Nope! A missing body means it must have come back to life and then the body must have flown up to heaven!
Lol, but that's what they act like. Another funny thing WLC says sometimes is, if Jesus didn't leave his tomb, why hasn't the tomb been made into a shrine?
If you want to see some laughably stupid apologetics, check out "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Geisler. There is a list of reasons too stupid to even parody.
jimbrown257 1 year ago
@jimbrown257 Sorry it took me two months to answer. Been busy.
Thanks for the great comment and heads up on Geisler. I saw that someplace on the internet a while back and it was very funny.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 1 year ago
@ebaltrace Have you ever been in countries where there are public executions like Crucifixion, hanging or beheading, etc? Maybe you should go there to appreciate how these extreme public chastisements could dissuade even the most bold revolutionaries. How much more Jesus' disciples who were already fearfull of the political and religious authorities. Moreover, they were disabused of their belief that Jesus was the messiah. So how many people would readily die for what they believe to be a lie?
flypejose 1 year ago
@flypejose Throughout history, and even in our own time, people have died for a lie. It is really not an unusual occurence, nor is it a convincing argument.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 1 year ago
@ebaltrace Generalities won't help you this time!!! Any reasonable person know that nobody on this planet Earth would ever die for something they are persuaded to be false!!! Take your own example: As a self-proclaimed atheist, are you ready to expose your life or to die defending the Christian Faith that you literally qualify as a hoax? watching Jesus being captured and Cruxified truned the disciples into disabused men and women.
flypejose 1 year ago
@flypejose Do you believe that Muslim Suicide bombers are dying for the Truth or for a Lie?
What about the wars between the Catholics and the Protestants? Could both sides have died for the Truth?
Any war that you examine has at east two sides. Someone is always dying for a lie. Perhaps all are dying for a Lie.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 1 year ago
@ebaltrace "... Take your own example: As a self-proclaimed atheist, are you ready to expose your life or to die defending the Christian Faith that you literally qualify as a hoax? You know the answer is a resounding NO!!! You understand that I'm talking about persuassion only. Dying for a cause prove that you are persuaded about it, not that it is true or false. The disciples went from disabused coward to bold Christians cuz they saw Jesus alive!!! Do you get it?
flypejose 1 year ago
@flypejose You keep on with the same lame argument. Do you remember the Japaneese Kamakasie pilots in World War II? They willingly gave their lives for their Emperor who they believed was the son of God. Did they die for the Truth or for a Lie? Maybe you are willing to die for the fictional Jesus story? The residents of Jonestown drank the poison Kool Aid because they believed in Jim Jones.
It's a very common experience for people to die for a lie.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 1 year ago
@ebaltrace If you were at Jonestown in Guyana, you'd have drink the poison too!!! Armed men were all over the compound to force followers to drink. As for the disciples, they were DISABUSED that Jesus was the son of God; The son of God couldn't have perished unto the hand of their enemies (the Romans and religious authorities). Therefore, they began to deny him like Peter did and went into hiding cowardly. After they saw Jesus resurected they became the boldest people in all the Roman empire.
flypejose 1 year ago
@flypejose How is this game played? When I quit answering your ridiculous repetitious claim do you declare yourself the winner?
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 1 year ago
@ebaltrace Every military person in the world is conditioned to die for their nation regardless of their religious belief. The Kamikazie Pilots you alluding were no exception! that is the likely explanation rather than the belief that their emperor was a god! The disciples knew no RELIGIOUS SUICIDE in their culture. Rather, they believed the Messiah to be a Victorious King unlike Jesus dying on a Roman cross. They could not have sacrificed their life for him seeing him agonizing on the cross.
flypejose 1 year ago
@ebaltrace, what you must realise is that the new Jewish day starts at sunset, unlike our Western day which begins after midnight. So say sunset occurred around 8 o'clock in the evening, 'the next day' would be anything after sunset at 8 PM. So say the conversation in 27:63 occured just before sunset (which it likely did as we are told the Jews RUSHED to get Jesus buried before sunset), the guard could have been placed just after 8PM (next day) so his tomb wouldn't have been unguarded for long.
bazzymushpea123 1 year ago
@bazzymushpea123 It says that the Jewish leaders spoke to Pilate ""the next day."
The Greek word used for "day" specifically refers to DAY LIGHT hours. So the first night that Jesus was in the tomb, the tomb was unguarded.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 1 year ago
@ebaltrace, please note i'm not a christian or an apologist, i just thought you should know that as it helps understand things more easily.
bazzymushpea123 1 year ago
@ebaltrace ohh so r u saying the fact that many people who for 1 hated jesus, didnt believe that he was God, and followers all saw him after his crusifiction??? explain that now everyone give this response a thumbs up just cause its correct
ScienceProvesGod777 1 year ago
@ScienceProvesGod777 Maybe when you grow up, and learn how to spell you will understand that the Jesus story is a fable.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 1 year ago
@ebaltrace
lol another person who is clearly leaving out critical information!
"If a corpse is missing, do we assume that the person was resurrected from the dead or do we look for an explanation that is more consistent with human experience?"
of course we look for an explanation, but when the deceased claimed he was God in the flesh, and then appeared after his death once again in the flesh to his people, i believe as any fair minded, logical person can be, that thats good evidence to
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@ebaltrace
to believe, he was raised from the dead and is the son of God!.. and this is the position that nearly ever historian and 75% of scholars take after investigating the resurrection of Jesus, they all come to the agreement of the tomb being empty, and his appearances to the disciples.. and many of them define that as a resurrection!
this erhman fellow is utterly ridiculous lol.. hes 1 historian going against the majority agreement, and i mean majority as in 95%.. his arguments are that
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@ebaltrace
the Gospels are in contradiction with each other lol.. a contradiction is the complete opposite of the first answer.. i agree the Gospels dont have all the same exact information written, but there not contradictions lol there just small changes!
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@ebaltrace so you believe the body was stolen correct?
unprofessionalvids 1 year ago
@ebaltrace There are only many natural explanations for the empty tomb if you take the evidence of the empty tomb in isolation. But not if you take this evidence alongside the evidence of Jesus's multiple post-mortem appearances attested to in indepndent sources, and the evidence for the depth of belief in the truth of the resurection among his early disciples, even though (and this is crucial) the disciples had every reason NOT to believe the resurrection as it contradicted their Jewish faith
relarerfhjk 11 months ago
@relarerfhjk Post Mortem appearances? Mary Magdalene was a woman with 7 demons. We would say she was mentally ill by today's standards and not a credible witness. Paul claims 500 brethren when Acts says Jesus only had 120 followers. According to the Bible Jesus only showed himself after death to his own followers. Why? Especially when he promised his generation that they would see him after he rose from the dead. Throughout History people have died for causes that were WRONG.
ebaltrace 10 months ago
the problem with people taking the non-religious stance is...anything is possible. we can walk through walls. we could live in the matrix. i could evolve into a dinosaur tomorrow. some things are so improbable that we just slap the word impossible on it (otherwise everything needs a disclaimer to be logically correct).
sometimes, we just need the best explanation, as craig says. except, raising from the dead isn't the best. bart gives an alternative (which he also doesn't believe).
matthewpng 2 years ago
Dawkins is a consumate scientist. He must have 'scientific evidence', not presupposing a God of the Gaps.
Well the same is true for Ehrman. He is a consumate historian who can't consider or entertain the notion of miracles when doing history. This makes him a good historian, and I understand his position and respect it highly
But A. There are still facts to be explained
and B There can be evidence from the Holy Spirit.
C as Ehrman said, miracles might be possible, only improbable
peacewalker7 2 years ago
Don't believe in miracles Mr. Ehrman? 1980, U.S. Olympic hockey team. I rest my case.
Youlube32 2 years ago
You say that as though there's never upsets in sports
bweber88 2 years ago
Well sure there are upsets, but that was damn near an impossibility.
Youlube32 2 years ago
WOW if Jesus was raised from the dead it was a miracle....
itsnolongeri 2 years ago
"God is fiction and never makes any claim to exist, man (men) make the claim. Christianity is merely one example of thousands of religions that claim knowledge of god. There is nothing unique about Christianity when compared to any religion. Why don't you believe in Islam?" Perhaps one of the most naive statements I've ever heard! Perhaps a little reading in comparative religions will provide the requisite education before you lay out accusations.
hairychest45 2 years ago
My gosh, he talks about proof! Any scholar worth his salt knows you can never talk about proof!! It is always 'evidence/data/results suggesting.....
hairychest45 2 years ago
You just make things up... you are an apologist who already has the "truth" in your head and refuse to listen/consider/comprehend any argument to the contrary. Proof. Did you listed to what Ehrman said? If you did you did not understand it.
mccabe1958 2 years ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@mccabe1958 you are an atheist who already has the "truth" in your head and refuse to listen/consider/comprehend any argument to the contrary. Proof. Did you listed to what Dr Craig said? If you did you did not understand it.
unprofessionalvids 1 year ago
And differences do not automatically confer error. My family would all tell me they care about me in different ways and each of them would be equally valid.
hairychest45 2 years ago
Your statement is 100% incorrect. If two statements differ one is in error. Pretty simple stuff really, why are you struggling with this idea? Your family example is a bad one, and not an example of differing stories.
mccabe1958 2 years ago 3
In relationships, what is the central component that confers knowledge/understanding of that person? It is knowing them. I do not base my relationship with my brother based on several biographies of him, but because I interact with him and know him. This is how it is with God, direct communication is central, the rest is secondary.
hairychest45 2 years ago
If God is who he claims to be, then the problem lies with this man's thinking. If God is not who he claims to be, then Christianity would never have come into existance.
hairychest45 2 years ago
God is fiction and never makes any claim to exist, man (men) make the claim. Christianity is merely one example of thousands of religions that claim knowledge of god. There is nothing unique about Christianity when compared to any religion. Why don't you believe in Islam?
mccabe1958 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
MauricXe 2 years ago
as a historian bart should know better. an argument from silence is not an argument at all. if two authors depict an event and give more information about the event. it dosen't mean they are contradictive. it just means there is more discription of that event.
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
okay, but if they DIRECTLY contradict one another, what does that mean??
jpanson 2 years ago
well first, we'd have to give an analysis of the contradiction. can you provide one for me?
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
Um, did you listen to this at all? Have you read the bible and not noticed them for yourself? I'm not sure what you are asking??
jpanson 2 years ago 4
well im asking for you to provide for me a contradiction in the bible. i can argue the speakers if u want to use his.. but have you found any contradictions for yourself. or only the ones he provided?
goldgoku3264 2 years ago
It's dubious when the events get more explicit as time goes on... sounds kinda like a rumor, doesn't it?
Shirakawasuna 2 years ago
Urgh... Ehrman seems incredible nervous...
His argument is ok, and pretty much the correct one when you are discussing religion from such a stupid perspective as Craig's one, but the presentation certainly suffers...
uvauva2 2 years ago
U dont think Ehrman sounds nervous but he has a hard job, discussing religion with Craig is not easy because all he says is that there the true and then talks about Space
3rdeyewildopen 2 years ago
He tries to come across as being highly objective, but it seems to me that the main force driving his interpretation of the evidence is a reluctance to believe in miracles. If you are inclined to not believe in miracles then petty discrepencies in the eyewitness accounts, (like how many women were really at the tomb), are going to be magnified larger than they need to be.
KyleVonMour 2 years ago
Wow, is it me, or does this guy seem a liiiittle bit....miffed? I wouldn't want to be around him when he's drunk. :P
Trueghostrider 2 years ago
BE doesn't seem to have read Dinesh D' Souza
Valkyrie0010 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Christianity is nearing an end.
This delusion is eroding due to the tranfer of knowledge and reduction of Godly ignorance. It is about time we grew out of this ridiculous superstition that has retarded every positive human endeavor since it's inception.
I for one say GOOD RIDDANCE!
judoyodan 2 years ago
If the rebirth was dependent on intellect or faith or understanding or theological study or conviction or repentance then it would be a secular conversion, the rebirth in man is only due to election so that mouths can be shut. There is no boasting on ability. This man has proved beyond any doubt that the bible does not create the rebirth or even faith, but in his case it produced more skepticism
Spurgeon123 2 years ago
Does Ehrman consider himself to be a Christian? I can't grasp how he could, though many people do while they don't believe in the Resurrection. I don't dismiss them, I just don't understand where they're coming from.
halfchihuahua 2 years ago
BE asserts the Gospels were written 30 to 65 years after the event.
The gospels were written by literate Christians who spoke and wrote Greek.
How many people witnessed the Crucifixion of Christ?
What was the population of Jerusalem at this time?
How many people knew of Christ at the time prior of his crucifixion?
Where there conflicts between Hellenistic Jews and Non-Hellenistic Jews?
jdquarg 2 years ago
Bart's arguments refuted?By whom?
confluential 2 years ago 2
In comparison to Bart, I must disagree.
jtfgill7 3 years ago
Interesting arguments, just stop yelling...
jtfgill7 3 years ago
Craig was also yelling...
GetMeThere1 3 years ago
I'm not sure Bart is actually debating, so much as he is pontificating :/
DJAnihilist 3 years ago
Are you a nihilist?
Christianjr4 3 years ago
By name only, lol. But, no I'm not really a nihilist :)
DJAnihilist 3 years ago
OK lol. Just checking :D
Christianjr4 3 years ago
Hello people...Islam says the same thing. If you believe in God and Jesus than Islam is your true religion.
gobuddyboy 3 years ago
Bart is spot on.
Basically, the more ertaordinary a claim, the more extraordinary the evidence that is required. Bad news for all Christians im afraid. How many of the fools even REALISE that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didnt write the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!
Theres a right answer and a wrong