William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman 5/12

A debate on the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection between the prominent Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig and the prominent New Testament historian Bart D. Ehrman.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Bart
• Ehrman
• Resurrection
• Jesus
• History

[Hannodb1961]

@bcgonynor 9

[Hannodb1961]

@bcgonynor All three those options have been discredited years ago. The fact of the matter is, there is no scenario that can make sense of all the historical documentation WITHOUT Jesus rising from the Dead. WLC does an excellent job at explaining why, and there's no point in repeating it all. It is easy to dismiss the evidence when you refuse to study it.

[bcgonynor]

@Hannodb1961 I understood what you were saying. it's you who missed my point. There is a difference between being surprised that a friend of yours ended up being a murderer, in a world where murders happen every day, and having to "consider" whether someone rose from the dead based on ancient documents, when this violates everything we know about our bodies. Any far-fetched alternative - that the apostles were liars, that Jesus was in a coma, that he had a secret twin - is more plausible. Sorry!

[Hannodb1961]

@bcgonynor My posts leading up to this analogy is still very much uninterrupted. As you can see, I responded to beriukay who said: "Would you put someone in prison because they didn't establish their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt?". I simply pointed out that WLC HAS provided his case, and HAS fulfilled his burden of proof. In other words, saying "he's shifting the burden of proof" no longer counts as a valid counter argument.

[Hannodb1961]

@bcgonynor I KNOW it's a flawed analogy. It's MEANT to be a flawed analogy to illustrate a point. The point I'm trying too expose the absurdity of materialists that say: "Well, just because I've never seen people rise from the dead in my life time, no amount of evidence could ever proof that it happened in the past, because such a thing is impossible". People shouldn't ask for evidence of something if they're not even willing to consider it.

[bcgonynor]

@Hannodb1961 This is a flawed analogy. The attorney may have never seen the defendant commit a crime, and indeed many people who know him might not have. But we're all aware that people (generally) commit crimes, and often try to keep them secret. "His neighbors described him as a quiet man..." So it's plausible that the seemingly nice guy is nonetheless guilty. A better analogy would be if someone were accused of killing someone 5,000 miles away using telekinesis. The court would throw it out.

[htiberian]

Why does Craig get a fancy powerpoint?

[SPQRAquila]

Christians' attempts to save their disgraced beliefs are amazing. No modern conspiracy theory can compete with it.

[Hannodb1961]

@beriukay Or, lets look at EB's approach. The lawyer ("sceptic") tells the judge: "Your honor, I have worked with my client (nature) for two years now (The sceptics very limited view of reality). NEVER have I ever seen him commit a crime (Miracle) and I must conclude that it is not in his nature to do so .It is IMPOSSIBLE that he could do it. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE that evidence can exist that he did do it,and whatever evidence is presented,must be a misrepresentation.The defense rests."

[Hannodb1961]

@beriukay Put another way. Suppose the prosecution makes a positive case for someone's guilt, and they cite many eyewitnesses and other evidences. Suppose then the defense lawyer stands up and say: "Your honor, I am not convinced. This is not evidence of anything, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that my client is guilty. The defense rests." Do you think that the judge would conciser this "reasonable doubt"? Well, this is exactly what WLC's critics are doing.