Did Jesus Rise Bodily from the Dead?: Gary Habermas vs Arif Ahmed

Christian and scholar Dr. Gary Habermas debates atheist Arif Ahmed on the resurrection of Jesus.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jesus
• Resurrection
• Easter
• Christ
• Gary
• Habermas
• Arif
• Ahmed
• Atheist
• Atheism
• Theism
• Christianity
• History
• Miracles

[BenjaminLe0]

Gary so frustrates me with his: take my word for it hollow assertion after hollow assertion

then his: Let’s assume that my faith based position is true … then I could be right. arguments

[cloudincloudout]

@salapuyou89 like what? what questions did he dodge? I'm going to assume you're not going to answer, but if you do, we'll go from there. It's mind-bugling to me that anyone who heard the above debate could still think that Habermas made sense. All his arguments were appealing to emotions and had no ground in scientific reasoning what so ever!

[cperez1000]

@k12rising,

Noah's flood is a fact, just like the Flintstones is a documentary

[k12rising]

@AQGOAT24 Would hurt your credibility to deny the flood, just imagine someone of this day denying the twin towers ever collapsed, the same would go for someone in noah's day denying the flood ever happened. Its stupid to not believe in Noah's flood. It's a historical fact.

[AQGOAT24]

@k12rising That would hurt his credibility. An academic wouldn't be stupid enough to believe in Noah's Flood.

[AQGOAT24]

@salapuyou89 Umad religitard?

[caveatemp]

@chirectomy I followed your "like" here. Great debate. I think of a miracle or supernatural event as something we do not yet have an explanation for- like Ahmed's example of Franklin's belief that lightening was supernatural and was later discovered to be electricity.

Why must a miracle break the laws? Isn't it more probable that we just haven't yet understood the laws pertaining?

[daemonowner]

@Anasurimbor9 [con] ...we can tell that there were serious differences and mistakes made in scribal transcription and from deliberate changing of meaning. We don't know who actually wrote the gospels, we don't know what they originally said, and we know of a long tradition of fraudulence. So the fact that the earliest copies we have are from a later time is an argument more against him than me. It more seriously damages his case.

[daemonowner]

@Anasurimbor9 Maybe so, but his argument is that the books of the Bible were from 30-40 years after his death (It's generally accepted to be a little more like 50-60 for most like Romans and Revelations), but if you want to say that the only copies we have are from ~150 years later, then two can play at that game. We don't have anything even approaching the original copies of the books of the NT, and the ones we do have are mostly fragments, and from the fragments and books...

[Anasurimbor9]

@daemonowner Right, but the only copies we have of those texts were found centuries after even if we know they were written earlier.