Ehrman-Licona Debate: Can Historians Prove Jesus Rose From The Dead Part 3

This is one thought provoking debate between Bart Ehrman, renowned author, professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Christian apologist and historian, Michael Licona. Can historians really prove Jesus rose from the dead? Watch and decide for yourself.

To view titles by Michael Licona or to purchase the DVD of this debate, please visit:

http://theapologeticsbookstore.com/search.aspx?find=michael+licona

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bart
• Ehrman
• Michael
• Licona
• SES
• apologetics
• southern
• evangelical
• seminary
• truth
• christianity
• bible
• God
• religion
• atheist
• atheism
• agnostic
• agnosticism
• harris
• hitchens
• dawkins
• blasphemy
• challenge

[wlbarbo]

Funny how the guy who alleges the use of Red Herrings is very partial to using them himself.

[CapsHockey100]

@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]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[CapsHockey100]

@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]

@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]

@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.

[CapsHockey100]

@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.

[ludogogo]

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.

[suminvictus]

shitty weazel can you give some examples of mass illusinations that have been studied by experts and said to be such?

[suminvictus]

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!