We need Bart to keep us, believers, in line. Too much nonsense. It is back to believers to do something good for society as a whole. Embrace big causes for the needy.
Noticed Licona didn't want to touch the ascension. It's more silly than the resurrection sounds. If you ascend as they claim Jesus did, you don't go to heaven, you go into orbit.
*A Story that Grew in the Telling* The source evidence that exists that purports to show that Jesus "rose from the dead" actually indicates how this idea most likely developed and evolved over time. It indicates that the idea that Jesus was somehow "resurrected" was a way his followers dealt with his sudden and unexpected execution and that this idea developed from an abstract one into one of a more concrete, physical revivification. The contradictions in the various accounts, which date from the 50s AD through to the 90s-100 AD, show this process of development.
Both naturalists and Christians must believe a miraculous event took place in the past. The naturalist must believe that dead chemicals arranged themselves to produce life, which has never been observed by anyone in history. The Christian must believe that a man arose from the dead, which has never been observed by anyone in history.
How is it not circular reasoning Bart? "Miracle's are not counted as a possibility when we look at history, therefore we can't prove Jesus rose from the dead". Is that not what you are implying? If an event X has three possibilities: 1) miracle 2)caused naturally by Y 3) caused naturally by Z, and it's best explained by 1), then why is it wrong to conclude that by an inference to the best explanation?
Because you missed out that "X didnt actually happen" , that it was a legend. And using occams razor that's a far more probably answer than a miracle actually happened .............as we don't have single confirmed miracle , Christian based or not.
Really good debate. Great points made on both sides. However, I think Bart Ehrman proved his point that belief in the resurrection is a matter of faith, not evidence. There is no evidence that there is a God, and there is certainly no evidence that a dead man got up from his grave and rose into heaven to this God.
Tim W do you have evidence of the origin of life, the origin of this universe, and why only the planet earth is habitable by myriad of species -- the micro & macrocosm of life? if you do not have evidence to support how you came into existence, does it mean you are a "delusional" being for believing something you do not have grasp or incapable of knowing? isn't it analogous to Jesus resurrection story? infact, Jesus resurrection story is backed up with written documents compared to the origin of the universe or the origin of life yet, many evolutionists support evolution (eventhough they DO NOT exactly know the VERY ORIGIN OF LIFE)
QUICKENING: MY EXPERIENCE When I was to be baptized or quickened by the power of the Holy Spirit in my late teens, I wasn't really so keen and focus. After I was baptized with water on the sea, a week after, it was followed up by the Quickening of the Holy Spirit conducted by our resident pastor. Dozens of us attended. I wasn't really expecting for anything to happen at all. But, just plainly curious. When Pastor Nelson laid his hand on me in prayer, then touched my forehead. In a split second, an explosion of glorious, expansive bright, whitish to golden light enveloped me whole. It was calming bright light, not so glaring to my eyes. I could see & feel it even when my eyes were tightly closed, all over me. Then the heat on my forehead grew intense. It's like drilling/inscribing/writing something on my forehead that hurts a bit. When the heat entered on my forehead, it slowly turned cooler (not cold) then slowly travels down my face, throat then to my chest or belly area & stayed there. I felt like my body was lifted up inches off the ground (though my feet still touching the ground) when I uttered syllables I couldn't control & comprehend. It's something like praising the Lord & thanking Him (I think). The whole event lasted for 7 to 10 seconds or so, or maybe minutes (I couldn't really tell). But it seemed like it's "eternal"... Overflowing Peace, Love, Joy & Happiness was what I felt that time, that I don't want it to end. I remember tears run down my cheeks & asking myself why I cried when supposedly I was in extreme happiness. I was conscious the whole time & can pinpoint the details, that's why I can still clearly describe it now like it has just happened a while ago, eventhough it happened 2 decades ago. That indescribable experience really was beyond description. No lexicon of words can describe it. Imagine your definition of extreme happiness you experienced it here on earth (example, you won 100Million dollars multiply that emotional happiness a million times over). That's what I exactly experienced! I had not shared my Quickening experience to many, except a few (only recently), because I thought many experienced similarly to what I had. Then I searched testimonies on UA-cam on what I experienced, I haven't had encountered similar to mine. I will try to search for more in the days to come. Months ago, a pastor once told me it was "quickening".
I learned about the Quickening in one of the sermons of Pastor Nelson decades ago. I didn't grasp the full idea or concept about it, really. So, my knowledge & comprehension about Quickening wasn't stored in my memory bin. Until a pastor told me online about Quickening. So, I researched about it. I stumbled across a short info about Quickening in Quora by Aaron Walton. (He studied Biblical Manuscripts, Bible Translation & volunteered for IGNP.) This is what he posted in Quora: " "The quickening spirit” is primarily a phrase found in the King James translation of the Bible and translations based on it. Unless I am mistaken, it is only in 1st Corinthians 15:45. Most translations translate it as “life-giving spirit”. The King James elsewhere uses the phrase “he will quicken the dead” which seems to mean to give life to the dead. So “quickening spirit” seems to mean “life-giving spirit”. The passage 1st Corinthians 15 is about the ressurection from the dead that Christians believe and Paul is making an argument that the ressurection will happen. In this particular verse he uses “the last Adam” as a reference to Jesus in order to draw a parallel between Adam and Jesus. All of this is to say that “quicken” in King James English should be understood as reanimating the dead or ressurecting the dead." End here. MY POINT OF VIEW Personally, this is my wisdom or understanding of the Quickening: I was once dead in spirit because of Adam's sin, plus my own natural sins or my sinful nature. When I was converted & baptized, my spirit was "quickened" or given life. That's why I experienced some supernatural spiritual phenomena (expansive & immense bright light that enveloped me whole; a fire as if drilling/inscripting/writing something on my forehead and later, cooled down & slowly settled on my chest/belly area; then mumbling of incomprehensible words while my whole body was almost lifted off the ground but still touching the ground, then tears roll down my cheeks eventhough I was extremely happy that time, so on and so forth). So I was basically "dead" but was made alive or "quickened" by the power of the Holy Spirit. I stand corrected on this point of view. I may be wrong on this. BIBLICAL SUPPORT: The Quickening 1 Corinthians 15: 1-58 King James Version (KJV) 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. The Quickening 1 Corinthians 15: 1-58 New International Version (NIV) 42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man. 50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” 55 “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.
The term is not biblical, although your reference was a quaint extraction from 1 Cor. 15:45, but not implicit. Yes, “the quickening” can refer to a person “receiving the Holy Spirit” but I’ll offer a caution here. A Christian receives the Holy Spirit when they receive Christ. Those events are not separated as they were in the embryonic stage of the Church. The term gain favor and gained ground with charismatic circles, as it was exploited by Hollywood. The Quickening is a phenomenon in the Highlander films and television series. Beheading a character known as an "Immortal" produces a powerful energy release from their body called a "Quickening." The series producers stated, "The power of the Quickening is the equivalent to a major electrical storm hitting-windows explode, lights short circuit, it is almost as if the victorious Immortal is in the center of a lightning storm. The idea of a power discharge and experience combined with a Christian experience was cohesively enhanced right after the 1986 release. Much of what is touted as Spiritual anointing by the charismatics is merely the awakening of the Kundalini by means of ancient occult methods. Kundalini is a well known occult practice, deriving its origin from India. It involves bodily manifestations as a consequence to the ‘Awakening of the Kundalini.’ This is not a mystical fabrication or belief system, but a practice that is strongly promoted by the New Age Movement. The Kundalini awakening does contain the most unbelievable expanded states of reality, enlightenment, and absolute ecstasy and it is extremely contagious. However, like crack stimulates dopamine, a Kundalini awakening opens wide a person's spiritual core, removing safeguards placed by the Creator. The end results can rip one's spiritual fabric, leaving a soul open to potentially malevolent powers. At the beginning of the Florida Outpouring, referring to Todd Bentley, Fresh Fire Ministries and Lakeland Revival back in 2012, Todd claimed that God had requested that he lay hands on everyone present for ten nights of special transfer or impartation. What resulted was transmuted power derived from the occult manifestation called the shaktipat. “Shakti” means power or energy, and “pat” means transfer. Kundalini awakening or (shaktipat) is the infusion of energy from the spiritual master to the seeker, bringing about the awakening of the seeker’s own inherent spiritual power, called “Kundalini.” Todd described this transferable “anointing” as the most contagious he had ever experienced. He said "I used to feel the anointing in my hand; now I feel it in my spine." It is true that the occult Kundalini awakening does indeed start in the lower spine. The meetings which mystic Hindu gurus hold are called ‘Darshan’. At these meetings devotees go forward to receive spiritual experience from a touch by the open palm of the hand or gathering of fingers, often to the forehead, by the guru in what is known as the Shakti Pat or divine touch. In a group setting, the transfer of this power will spread like fire to all in attendance who are mentally open and spiritually compromised. They will receive the touch which results in all manner of physical manifestations. The results vary from person to person. Involuntary bodily movements; jerking, tremors, shaking; spontaneous vocalizations; burning sensation; sounds in the head; confusion and stupor; gyrating and pulsating; or when slain, unable to move. These manifestations are called 'Kriyas' by the Hindus. Often devotees move on to higher states of spiritual consciousness and become inert physically and appear to slip into unconscious stupor. This state is called 'Samadhi' and it leads to a deeper spiritual experience. The Buddhist suttas mention that samadhi practitioners may develop supernormal powers that can lead to very uncomfortable occult manifestations. The late John Murray, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, who died in 1975 said “the difference between truth and error is not a chasm but a razor’s edge.” There will be many false workers, or many “Who are called by His name”, but very few will be genuinely authentic, this is just the facts (Matthew 7:22). The anointed servant are those who work without seeking recognition or fanfare as Christ and the Apostles humbly served. The Holy Spirit filled doesn’t seek fame, recognition, money and may never be known, such is the humble and contrite of heart. Those of the Pharisee spirit, egocentric and endued by principalities and powers, seek an exuberant audience, accolades, affirmation, financial gain and make a spectacle of the precious gifts of God like a side show circus. Those given to the extreme charismatic (emotional or fleshly) bent are susceptible prey to these types of leaders, whereas such is the power of hypnotic manipulation through the drone of their voice.
M Umair Javed that’s a double edge sword because if he place the same scrutiny into the Koran then he’d show how unreliable and false that book is as well. Bigger question is, if he did would you accept his conclusions based on the same methodology used to dispute the Bible as you would used to dispute the Koran?
So Bart gets offended that God won't answer his prayers, because people are suffering. then he continues to write 30 books all surrounding Christianity, seems pretty hypocritical. He spends his whole life making money off of something he doesn't believe in anymore, still leaning on Jesus for $$$$$$$ MONEY hahaha
What? Hold up! Licona first says that people relating the Jesus story orally had a tradition of accuracy. Then he goes on to say when they finally got around to writing the story down ,there was "elasticity" WTF!
One second he says mark claims he is god, then he cant find it, then its apocalyptic.. then it's not. This fool Licona, just makes any word fit anything... nothing means anything when he is done.
Mike's claim on the accuracy of oral traditionmegaphone. I am African and 3 of my grand parents I got to meet, told historical stories very differently, most times only the moral take away is the same. The difference between the recitation of Torah and verbatim recitation of numerous events in the new testament is that the Torah was a book they revisited over and over again as a point of reference. They studied it for a long time before being bestowed the honor of Ben Torah. But these events like sermon on the mountain, etc happened just once. What's the chance that these different individuals will remember them verbatim? Fairly slim, and What's the chance that they all had the same take away from the same sermon? Slim. I even doubt these huge number people heard his sermon effectively with no mass communication technologies like megaphones. So no Mike.
Bart's comment at 48:45 "My view is that Jesus and the Apostles would not recognize today's Evangelical Christian as a Christian. Because Evangelical Christianity is so far removed from anything Jesus ever preached." This statement is unequivocal truth! Reminds me of Mahatma Gandhi statement, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” A good book that illustrates the current mindset among the spiritually meaningful but institutionally removed is written by Dan Kimball, "They Like Jesus but Not the Church: Insights from Emerging Generations". Although written in 2007, the book's content is still very relevant.
Unbelievers commenting on the conduct of Believers now, this should be interesting... What's your gripe, why aren't modern Christians following what the Son of God said in your opinion?
My comment was framed as "spiritually meaningful but institutionally removed" which does not at all imply an unbeliever, but one that has been removed from the candor of religious pretense. Ordained in 1986 and still a director of a world missions organization, I retain my faith, but spurn any fallacious community of pseudo-Christians. Just as the parable of the sower of the seed in the three Synoptic Gospels illustrates, most seed will fall on shallow hearts, where only a small percentage will ever yield results. Add to that how Matthew 7:22 reveals that multitudes will claim heritage to the faith, but they will be turned aside for being entirely false and self-deceived. In essence, what Bart states is also resonated by the writers of the Canon; Jesus would have nothing to do with what many claim as Christianity. Bart responded personally to my comment in an email with, “It’s one of the great ironies!”
So... You're not going to state what makes modern Christians less Christian than you? You just wrote high handed nonsense and didn't even answer my question. So again, give an actual example of Christian hypocrisy, or "irony". I'm not going to keep asking, do you have anything substantial or you're just here to pat yourself on the back?
"Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." well Bart is correct
150 years of scientific evidence aren't enough for them to believe in evolution, but four anonymous and contradictory gospels written decades after the events are all they need to believe in the resurrection.
Actually, most Christians believe in evolution. However, several people dying for something they "made up" is completely unprecedented in human history. There's not a whole lot of observable evidence however, in the past 150 years, that humans, chimps, rats, worms, slugs, thorn bushes, algae and weeds, all share a common ancestor, which is the claim of Darwinian Evolution (as opposed to lateral evolution). Good try though.
Right back at you. There is plenty of evidence that the Scriptural prophetic utterances are valid. Plenty! The problem is that most people are brainwashed into believing that slime plus time created Charlize Theron and thereby refuse to investigate the prophetic claims of Scripture. Have you?
Matt M Nobody died for something they didn’t believe? Do you know the history of Mormonism? Have you ever heard of any of the cult leaders worldwide that died claiming to be divine? That happens far more than you think bro
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that all these living things are related, it's just not the kind that you would see while living your every day life. It's in the DNA, and our eyes can't see that without a microscope.
The accuracy and precision of "oral tradition" rely on "exclusion of personal opinion and selection." Meanwhile, the "elasticity" which Dr Licona tolerates completely contradicts the fact that personal opinion needs to be excluded in order to have an accurate oral tradition.
side note : The debate topic was actually "is there GOOD evidence for the resurrection" , it's a very importantly distinction, they may well be SOME evidence, found in some ancient anonymously written text written by people who's job it is to show that it happened , but that it is not contemporary, not unbiased to the subject matter, non eyewitnesses ( not that eyewitness testimony is reliable anyhow) and written by people who were not from the area or fluent in the language the stories emanated from. and written 35-60 years after the pro-ported events happened........... anyhow...... 48 minutes = slam dunk ( but paraphrased) ML = The vast majority of people in the society of Biblical Literature believe my side of the story BE = that's because the vast majority of Biblical scholars are Christian ML - Oh just c'mon Bart........ thats simply not true BE -er.......OK name them ML - names two out of thousands of possible BE - eh? ........these TWO people you have just specifically cited to bolster your point, both identify themselves as being Christian? Do you accept that? ML - cough - they aren't real christians...... BE- if Jesus and the disciples had a look at the average Christian they would would be horrified. ML - squirms and tries to deflect the conversation JB - cough.....we have to take a break....... judge for yourselves who has the stronger argument
Interesting discussion but I wish they had spent more time arguing for and against the evidence behind each position. Instead, Most of their disagreement came from how they used the word history. Bart uses it in its dictionary 1st form: "The study of past events". His complaints revolve around what is and isn't accepted in the formal study of history. Micheal seems to be using the second dictionary definition of the word: "the whole series of past events." But he only touched briefly on why the accounts could be considered reliable. They kept talking past each other because of this disagreement on how to use the word history and we didn't get much meat out of the discussion. It was still great to listen to though.
I laughed as well. Mainly because he says it in almost every introduction of himself. It's just a rhetorical device he uses to say, "I'm not crazy but I just happen to believe things that "sound" crazy but I have three, no two, no one, indisputable fact (disputed by some) that I build an amazing ad hoc inferential nexus that leads to the resurrection of Jesus."
Thanks for your lectures. I really appreciate them since I finally decided to have a deeper look at my Revolutionary Kosmik Kowboy Hero from an attempted historical perspective. You and I have been on a similar journey. Great food for thought. How 'bout this: a physical resurrection without being zapped alive by God? Ye Olde Swoon Theory. I know it might be a stretch, but Jesus apparently lived a healthy life. Walked all over the place under open skies, ate a Kosher "Mediterranean" diet, got a lot of positive feedback, probably felt great--in other words, he was most likely very fit and had a lot endurance. And if he was a carpenter, that's getting paid to work out. What if he survived crucifixion? Maybe the Roman centurions--or whoever they hired--were in a hurry to join all the festivities of the largest party of the year in Jerusalem? Thought, "He looks dead to me."? (My understanding is that the crucifiers avoided arteries--maybe use tourniquets--so the crucified wouldn't bleed out quickly and thus prolong the torture and humiliation through asphyxiation.) Didn't I read somewhere that Pilate was surprised by how quickly Jesus died? Maybe in the coolness of the burial cave--or wherever--he woke up? Maybe lived a day or two longer and freaked out some disciples, thus giving credence to divinity? Such has happened before--in real-time history--right? (And not that this would make a gigantic difference...)
Yes I agree - Licona is the former and Ehrman is a joke. This is clearly evidenced by Licona's flushing of Ehrman's effluent that the Gospel of Mark doesn't articulate the divinity of Christ when Jesus CLEARLY claimed the power to forgive sins for which the Pharisees labelled Him a blasphemer: "Who can forgive sins but God alone". Psssssst - in other words, Jesus is Divine. Ehrman is a joke. Mark is CLEARLY expressing the divinity of Christ! Likewise Ehrman's ridiculous contention that the Gospel of John doesn't deal with an apocalyptic Jesus who John CLEARLY identifies as Judge. Ummmmm, if Jesus is given the power to 'JUDGE' how is that not 'apocalyptic'? Sorry AurochsReborn - Ehrman is a lightweight feeder of infantile atheists who desire to be spoon-fed what they want to hear rather than actually read the Scriptures and think for themselves.
Objection: We don't know that Paul was ever "Jesus' foe" and then converted. We just know that he said that's what happened. You don't think that maybe Paul, a born salesman if the Roman Empire ever saw one, didn't know that a dramatic conversion story like this was good for pushing his church? Just a little? I of course can't prove that Paul lied about anything. But neither can anyone else prove that he was truthful. To believe him is a matter of faith. And faith is not evidence.
I`m not a aware, that historians or NT scholars (atheist, agnostic, christian, jewish or whatever) at any know university dispute the historic reliability of Pauls life and persecution of the early church. If there are any, you can count them on one hand. Even Ehrmann doesnt dispute it. You are following conspiracy theories without any historical basis.
There is something that I've never understood. How come that after his resurrection Jesus was on earth for forty days among his fellows and almost nothing has been reported of this period. Dozens of stories before his death, sayings, parables, etc and nothing after? One week preaching about a great message before the resurrection and then for forty days, when there was no more doubts that he was some kind of a god, nothing. Is it plausible?
Licona offer three 'minimal facts'. As soon as Erhman dismissed that as one fact, Licona immediately pivoted to say, "but you can't just rely on a few facts!"
A New Historiographical Approach or the Same Old Apologetic Claptrap? Here's Licona's suggestion for how a historian goes about determining that a miracle has occurred: "We may recognize that an event is a miracle when the event (a) is extremely unlikely to have occurred, given the circumstances and/or natural law and (b) occurs in an environment or context that is charged with religious significance. In other words, the event occurs in a context where we might expect a god to act. The stronger the context is charged in this manner, the stronger the evidence becomes that we have a miracle on our hands, if the historical evidence for the event itself is good." (p.163) In other words, the historian must have some objective criteria for determining what kind of things God is likely to do before he can determine that God did something. What that criteria might be, he never tells us. Licona tries to hide the circularity of his arguments within hundreds of pages spent discussing methodology, but it cannot be done. "However, if we take into consideration the existence of a God who may have reasons for raising Jesus from the dead, the probability that Jesus rose is increased significantly. For example, if a historian holds that God does not exist(atheism) or that God doesn't intervene in human affairs(deism), she will also hold that Jesus' resurrection is implausible. However, if she holds that God exists, that he acts within human history and that Christianity is probably true, she is most likely to hold that Jesus' resurrection is quite plausible." In other words, if a historian already believes that the central tenets of Christianity are true, she is likely to conclude that this central tenet of Christianity is plausible. There is nothing new here.
From what I gather, Michael couldn't set aside Theological presuppositions when Bart's clearly trying to demonstrate how Historical Approach to Jesus' done?
Bart commented: 1. "Jesus and the Apostles would not recognize today's Evangelical Christian as a Christian. Because Evangelical Christianity is so far removed from anything Jesus ever preached."
"Narrative elasticity" comes off more and more as not quite a vote of confidence for Oral Tradition, or deliberate falsehood. On the one hand, Licona applauds the rigor of ancient rabbinic oral tradition, compared to how we use our memory today, then shifts gears rapidly to excuse contradictions as "time compression" and something we cannot judge by our standards. Maybe his bias is clouding his deeper take on the early Christian accounts.
Bart Erhman is so dishonest. Sells himslf as agnostic but infact does not give room for God's existence. When it serves him, he claims every scholar agrees with him; when cornered he claims all those scholars are Christians even if some of them aren't, strictly speaking, Christians. Debates and discussions are about winning arguments to him.
Licona does seem like a sane apologist. It is quite refreshing to hear so few logical fallacies from a theist apologist. But, then the resurrection is mentioned and the delusion sets in again and all arguments are nothing but logical fallacies. Now, an argument could still have a good point and be correct, but they are nothing _but_ logical fallacies. No points, no logic and nothing coherent that follows from any of the premises even if any premise is true. Stories clearly changed before they were written down. Stories clearly changed radically and significantly after they were written between gospels. Even if hear say was reliable and you grant the writers 'elasticity', there is no reason whatsoever to assume that any resurrection occurred ever. People could be hallucinating, lying, exaggerating, etc. and they probably were doing at least one of those and possibly more of those options at the same time. No evidence suggests that they actually witnessed something real. What Licona is struggling with is that if you don't know the cause for something, THEN YOU DON'T BASE A CONCLUSION ON WISHFUL THINKING! And I learned that scholars aren't philosophers. Bart made me think they are, because he is. :p
They covered a lot, but the three facts they largely agree on. As far as the visions it didn't seem Bart was willing to admit the group hallucinations/visions, but that there were at least multiple. Hallucination could be possible unless it was a group. It would be weird if these people talked and all saw the same thing. As far as lying or exaggeration goes it doesn't make sense because these people were willing to die for their faith.
I wonder what the statistics are in terms of people who decide to take their religion they've been born into seriously (as Mike licona did) and discovering that they were indeed born Into the correct religion...
This stuff gets super frustrating. If Jesus was god why wouldnt he just write everything down himself and be done with. Why make it so complicated that we dont have original writings and they all need to be translated and it all has to be taken on interpretation and faith? Why not make it clear and reasonable for everyone to accept so that there is no debate needed. It really doesnt make any sense
Perhaps so that mankind would use free will to choose to believe and have faith, which is necessary in rejecting temptation and the whispering of the Liar, aka Satan.
@@DavidVonR How so? Let's take Mike Licona's own example of a man being decapitated and then returning back a few hours later with his head reattached. I would posit that a natural explanation, such as he has access to advanced secret medical technology, or that he's an alien, or that he preformed a very convincing illusion would all be infinitely more plausible because none of them depend on a SUPERNATURAL explanation.
I listened to part of it. Stopped listening when it became apparent that this wasn't a debate, which is formally structured and gives equal time to both participants. This is a conversation with a partial moderator. I'm surprised Ehrman agreed to this.
Laurie, I noticed as well, it comes down to the fact that Ehrman can debate both of them at once, without losing his composure; they are doing "Superstition" he is doing "History" makes it easy
I find it much more interesting that it is not a formal debate. I like to here the points contradicted immediately without the usual: let me say again what i said before there are 4 undisputed facts etc etc etc
The hypothesis showed faith. Unfortunately, not fact. All religious readings do, however, base , biasly lean toward faith. So, maybe our little facts we lil humans on earth have, are many steps down from faith. Fact is less than Faith. Faith is more real than fact. , so on.. as stupid as things are today, I wouldn't doubt it.
Licona - and all these sophists - are guilty of the "begging the question" fallacy. It makes me cringe when I hear this nonsense. Shame on them for constructing arguments that are similar to those which Nigerian scam 'artists' use.
..where is the official book of jesus ? I always wondered 🤔🤔🤔these fictitious books called mark, Matthew, luke,and john were written decades ago and what's more interesting is that these names were given many many years after these were written.
"Hi ladies and germs, and welcome to my 49th appearance. It's great to be here in the fabulous Herod Room at the spectacular One Seasons Judea! I'll be here all week ... well, until Friday, anyway ... maybe Thursday ...
Oh yea, what does that say in the image on screen? "They debate key historical facts about the resurrection." Wow! These are by no means facts! Absolutely not fact! But there is a true Father of Christ (the Word), and there are multitudes of spirit beings that exist without flesh, outside of space and time, that never end and have everlasting life. There are also heavens, beyond the firmament, beyond the astral heavens, and they are spoken of often. If one wishes to limit their studies to one book provided by organized religion, they do themselves a great injustice. Seek and you will find.
No it is not a matter of faith, nor of belief, nor is it within your religion. The truth is far beyond this, and is not easy to put into text of any language. But it is available, and this truth is within each of us, but takes many lifetimes to gain. Sure Jesus appeared to others after his death, but this was his will to let others envision him, to leave a few messages before returning to his place with the Father. There is no mystery here at all. Humans seem so ignorant to me, or they do not find time to come to know the real truth. Your final exam is coming soon. Study now.
the problem is the claim that the body was physical. Jesus appears in a room, he meets two on the road to Emmaus (who don't recognise him ) and then disappears. Spiritualists say we all survive death and spirits can materialise for a time. That would be a better explanation -though the doubting Thomas stuff and the bodily resurrection is probably the Jewish theology. Paul says we are not resurrected in a flesh and blood body but a new glorious body-again that fit in with the Spiritualist approach -and not just them . Whether they are right is another matter but there are empirical studies.
The "inference to the best explanation" is not that Frodo destroyed the One Ring in fires of Mount Doom; as witnessed by Sam, his enemy Gollum, and the Fellowship of the Ring. It's that an Englishman made it all up. People lie.
Really, so multiple people fabricated a religion, despite the fact that they were persecuted and at least some of them were martyred for it, and promoted it while gaining nothing for it and never recanted their testimonies? The individuals promoting this also claimed to have been eyewitnesses to the alleged events.
There's thousands of gods and tens of thousands of people fabricating religion littered across history. You act like this would be a unique occurrence, David... How many Egyptians died while being persecuted by YHWH during the Exodus? Does that mean their gods were the true ones?
Even if one grants Christians can squeeze out some information in the bible that Jesus resurrected, their level of certainty should at least give them pause to use the book to hate people or get laws pass to affect the rest of us.
16:17 >Historians don't just take and isolate a single fact. When we consider hypotheses and what occurred in past we gather as much data as possible >minimal facts approach pick one
"And so we can say with virtual certainty that there were Christians with information about Jesus from within a year or two at the very latest, of the traditional date of his death and that Paul knew at least something about what these people were saying about Jesus." - Bart Ehrman (Did Jesus Exist?, Pge 125)
So.....therefore the supernatural is real and there is a god and that god sent some portion of himself to earth and that sin is real and original sin is real and that this human version of god died for sins etc....?
Paul actually says the opposite of "I got this from the Jerusalem Apostles" he says, "For the gospel I preached is not of human origin." Gal 1:11 "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:12 "My immediate response was not to consult any human being..." Gal 1:16 "I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later, I returned to Damascus." Gal 1:17 "Then after 3 years (!), I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days." So, tell me Licona...is Peter lying?
Can someone recommend a good apologist to listen to in these Debates. Thus far the pinnacle has been William Lane Craig and that is sad because he is a pseudo intellect after you watch enough of his Debates. Craig is light years above a Mike Licona, Matt Slick, Braxton Hunter or Ray Comfort though.
Sam Harris said in a debate with Craig, that William Lane Craig "[...] puts the fear of God in many of my fellow atheists", but Mitch Rhodes thinks he is a pseudo intellect. Sure...
Matt slick is cancer and his own daughter became an atheist. WLC is very good but some of his views just seem odd to me. Like molonism. Ed feser is very good but i think there are problems with thomism, especially in terms of how it relates to the trinity.
+BloodTar Why would anyone want to believe that there is no life after death? This makes no sense whatsoever. There is nothing about atheism which fulfills any wishful thinking. There is only the ability to process evidence of the lack of evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being.
@@ianrwood21 As an Atheist you deny a god and a hell. It is comfortable for people who wish to live by their own desires without being judged at the End of the day. So there is also wishful thinking in being Atheist, so you dont need to take Moral responsibility of your life. Who would not want to be their own judge in court, If i you did something wrong. So this Argument works in both ways.
BOOM! Mic drop at just past the one hour mark from Bart. With Licona severely on the ropes. OHH BTW. The actual real discussion starts at the ten min mark.
U Malm quick facts the earliest book in the Bible in the letter to the Thessalonians which dates 50 ad in it Paul talks about the churches in Judea and the father the son and the holy spirit with the resurrection.
John wrote from the perspective that Yeshua was the Word of God. Johns prologue to the book, chapter 1, is about the Word. Not necessarily about God, but Gods Word. God is His Word, but John is defining the Word, which is the law and prophets. The subject is the Word. The beginning John is writing about is when the Torah, the Word of God, was given to the people. This is the beginning of the Word; its not about creation. The Word became flesh. Yeshua spoke everything the Father told him. John is testifying that the Father sent the messiah and spoke through him. John is not saying Yeshua is God.
Why are people so ready to believe that 1 Corinthians 15 is an early creed going back to a few years after Jesus supposedly died? If it was an early creed that was known at the time that Paul was writing (circa 55 AD) why do none of the gospel authors seem to be aware of it? None of the resurrection accounts in the gospels match what is in 1 Corinthians despite them being written only 15- 40 years after Paul was writing. This 'so called 'creed' appears nowhere but 1 Corinthians. As for Licona's suggestion that he got this from Peter / James - Paul never suggests that he got anything at all from the apostles or from any man. In fact he stresses that he didn't and that what he received was from revelation. 1 Corinthians 15:6 says "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." A creed that goes back to a few years after the event it describes wouldn't include a statement that most of them were still alive. We don't have any accounts from any of the people mentioned by Paul claiming that Jesus appeared to them. Paul is talking about roughly 585 people and we have nothing from any of them. All 1 Corinthians 15 provides evidence of is Pau's claim to have seen the risen Jesus and even that is only valid if the 'creed' was originally part of the epistle rather than a later insertion.
Value the gospel of John over the other three, but these four are far from all. Also wonder why most including these two Professors, only seem to speak of a single compiled book that limits what text were even included by a council so long ago. For me true Christians predated this Council of Nicaea, had much greater knowledge then is spoken of by disciples that Christ himself tells us did not even know him, at least most. Also, in today's times, most do not even give Christ nor the truth much attention. Even these two here spend too much time speaking of this one book. But no flesh resurrected.
That’s what you call blind faith, emotions overriding reason. If at least they would acknowledge that some things they take as history and others as faith..none of the hearsay “Evidence”, “Facts” would have any weight in a court of Law.
And then at min 1:03:00, Ad populum... And even if it was true what you are saying, that's because historians never investigate miracles... But it isn't. Historians do count miracle as a possibility for a miracle claim, obviously it should be counted as a possibility for an event before refuting it, and if it's the most plausible explanation, then it's reasonable to believe in it. An event doesn't need to be considered as possibly a miracle if it is never claimed to be miraculous. But when it does claim to be miraculous, then it automatically counts as a possibility that historians need to investigate. For events never claimed as miraculous, they don't need to. They just take a look at the natural possibilities, not the supernatural. I highly suggest you review your philosophical reasoning We do the same for fairy tales, big foot, or anything. It claims to be supernatural, so we investigate any historical data on it. But we don't have any historical data on it, so we conclude we don't have good reasons let alone any reasons to believe in it
There are five aspects of a generation. If you really read the bible and understood it like you claim, you would know that at least. Genesis 6:3 the days of man are 120 years; the same amount as Moses and the time it took to build the ark of Noah, as in the days of... A generation for the nation is 50 years known as a Jubilee and 40 for that time of Exodus in the desert; illustrated by the days on the mount of God and Christ time in the desert. Abraham and Isaac had a 100 year generation separation. 70 years spoken by Jeremiah and Daniel for the appointed time of Israel to restore and rebuild to Messiah; ALSO written as the life span of a man of 70 years and 80 for a healthy man. Now the times to match to the end of 2017, 1897 1st Zionist congress = 120, 1917 Balford decoration = 100, 1947 decoration signed by Eisenhower = 70, 70 from 1897 is 1967 6 day war = 50. Now the one generation not present in the 120 is the 40 year generation. You can say what you want to your own detriment but what you are saying about the law and the prophets is a lie. There prophecies are accurate and most are not only for past fulfillment of Christ but also HIS Very Soon return. Happy Hanukkah/dedication, feast of tabernacles of the Maccabees John 10:22-23. The secret is in the feasts and the menorah. Buy a clue if you need to. Your wisdom is counted as foolishness for your pride has blinded you. You yourself are a fulfillment of prophecy just not in a good way.
Its useless to use the argument from authority and say the majority of scholars agree Jesus was raised from the dead, when the reason people get into scholarship in the first place, like Bart, is usually to affirm what they already believe, i.e. Christianity........ and then to better equipped to defend it.
Greg Rhodes 1 Corinthians is dated by all scholar to written in 55 ad including Bart erhman and in the book it is talking to an existing church and discusses all core church doctrine. Father son holy spirit, death resurrection, atonement, the Eucharist .
Ehrman says name a secular historian that thinks Jesus rose from the dead... If that isn't a facepalm I don't know what is. Then, as if it couldn't get anymore absurd, he says regardless where the evidence leads, miracles aren't admissible as a best explanation. That's abject nonsense, if it is something that goes outside the laws of nature it's by definition a supernatural occurrence. Ehrman has to impose his own rule that miracles are impossible to maintain his sad and fatal agnosticism.
Why is that a facepalm? If Jesus had really risen from the dead would everyone have automatically become a messianic Jew? If it's a fact, it's a fact no matter what you believe about its implications or its relationship to any religion. Besides, historians in ancient times did record reportedly supernatural events. Tacitus wrote about a woman giving birth to a snake and an appearance by the mythical Phoenix. Herodotus reported mythological and religious stories even though he didn't think they were real historical events. You can have a scientific fact, supported by evidence. Or a historical fact, supported by multiple reports from disinterested parties. Or an article of faith, something with no evidence nor historical sources which is believed based only upon folk tales or edicts. Miracles are impossible. That's the point. It's when God breaks the rules of the Matrix.
A miracle is, by definition, a unique and supernatural event. That is exactly why Bart says that to evoke miracle is to move beyond historiography and into faith. It is a matter of method. Even if miracles occur, they are by definition the least probable explanation and therefore not accessible to historical method. To evoke miracle is to evoke the least probable explanation, which is why no historian is able to use that explanation credibly. That is true even if miracles really occur: it is a limitation of the historical method. Note that Ehrman did not say that miracles don’t occur. He said that, even if they do occur, they can not be demonstrated using historical method. The problem is that people slide from historical argument into a faith-based, miraculous conclusion without acknowledging that their methodology has fundamentally changed. That is exactly what Prof Licona has done here, and Prof Ehrman was correct to call him out on it.
That's not what was said at all... What the Hell. You say miracles are automatically the least likely explanation, let's say that's true regardless that miracles have happened. The whole point, is what is the BEST explanation. Now this whole thing with unbelievers dealing with the facts of the Holy Bible, is attempting to get out of what it says. If it says he healed the blind well it was a magic trick, etc. But this is about the big one, the resurrection. What Ehrman said is miracles aren't allowed through the historical method (in so many words). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that is a biased, gross presupposition that immediately excludes Christianity, replete with miracles. Also implies the Bible is fraudulent. And yet... Any honest agnostic will say yes of course maybe the Bible is truthful, but then say what is the evidence (only a dishonest cretin would demand proof). So then we embark on "evidence" and we're told miracles are inadmissible explanation??? C'mon. This was one of the worst I've seen from Ehrman, you must know that too. And trust me I rate him highly among infidel apologists, it's not an insult. If we had video footage of the resurrection, we wouldn't then say it's forbidden in historical scholarship 200 years later. As it is, we have it in the best recording available, with a heck of a lot of evidence, and is CERTAINLY a viable option explaining what we know happened back then. And let's face it, everything accords with it (tomb being empty etc, you can make up a reason why it is empty, I'm pointing out resurrection fits with available evidence, there's nothing that says NOT a resurrection). Someone else here said why is it a facepalm... If they believe the resurrection they're Christian, by default. It's a resurrection. Divine miracle. It's a supernatural intercession you can't not believe in the God if He has gained Himself glory via miracle.
It's a very straight forward argument. If a proposition is only accepted by people with particular religious commitments, then it cannot be said to be an objective fact.
Claims of miracles are best approached in a Bayesian sense: The Bayesian prior for a given miracle claim might be extremely low, but we are not justified in claiming that miracles are "impossible" or "never the best explanation", as we cannot demonstrate absolute statements. Rather, we should gather as much information as possible, and our degree of belief in a miracle should be dependent upon how much the evidence supports such a claim. It just so happens that the historical evidence very strongly supports the resurrection of Jesus, although it does not prove this beyond a possible doubt.
The differences between Mark and John are enormous. It's not just a matter of "narrative elasticity" as Licona claims. He's trying to downplay the massive differences to make it seem that Mark and John are basically saying the same thing. They aren't though.
It's common for bereaved to have after death visions. If Jesus did rise from the dead it is still reasonable to assume that including those that actually witnessed the risen Jesus there would also be those that would have normal visions. Proving the resurrection does not disprove visions.
When my dad died, for years I would have dreams so realistic feeling (although the weird stuff was not actually realistically real), that I thought it was real until I woke up. I am now having occasional short dreams just before awaking that continue after I wake up, or at least I think I'm awake. Fortunately, the dreams are very short, because I hate dreaming I'm about to have a head on crash, but the dream continues for a second or two after I am seemingly awake and it seems like the crash is actually happening. If I didn't know better, I could see how I once might have believed that I was having visions in my dreams or as I awoke, such as on the road to New York City.
Bart mentioned Forged in his intro & talked about how the NT contains forged works. Seems to cast doubt on everything, doesn't it? Clearly shows early Christians had motive to lie in order to market their religion.
If your a homicide detective,the first thing you will notice about the Resurrection accounts is there different,that's actually a good sign to start with,if you ever seen interviews with people who were told about an auto accident,you usually get difference accounts all the time,I would be more sceptical of accounts that line up exactly the same,it's probably not true.
If you are a homicide detective and your best evidence (according to Licona) is a guy (Paul) saying: "let me tell you what I received and it is that Christ was raised, according to the scriptures" you have some hearsay, and you would ask, how long ago did this happen according to whatever you received (and what exactly do you mean by received? do you mean was told? or you received a letter, what?), and why do you mention "the scriptures" - is this some weird religious belief????
Licona's entire argument is based on a few, inconsistent, unconfirmed stories in which people have reportedly claimed to have seen Jesus after he allegedly died. We really have different concepts of "bedrock". At least this demonstrates why the discussion about standards for "evidence" is so important.
When historians claim "bedrock", it means that there are several independent accounts. In other words, even it's 3 or 4 people, who have nothing to do with each other, then the account is almost certain to have occurred. It's a long standing, historical concept, based on probability. Even though there was 1 person who claimed to have seen Anne Frank in Auschwitz, and 1 person who was still alive to claim that she was arrested and taken by the Germans (her father), and a diary that she left that told us nothing about how she was taken, or how she was killed, historically we have an air tight version of her death. When you have several different sources that explain the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or at least that He was seen after his death, and the sources have nothing to do with each other... it is "bedrock". The chances of the pieces falling in place for any bedrock historical even are like 1 in trillions. Sorry.. you have no idea what you're talking about.
Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp all were students of the apostles and confirmed the martyrdom of the apostles as well as the resurrection.
Part-Time Vegan so of the many available options like people lying or being mistaken the one you think is *most likely* is that a human being came back from death?
@@ianyboo Those "available options" don't fit the historical record. That's the problem. The resurrection hypothesis is the one explanation that most simply accounts for all of the evidence.
Bart Ehrman says that other scholars say this and say that? But he rarely said the names of the scholars he is referencing to? Nor does he go into their back rounds in knowlege and education. And also I was watching a debate between him and David wallace. And in that debate David wallace quoted a quote from a book that Bart wrote. And the quote in that book was Bart quoting another person. And David demonstrated that that person said the opposite of what Bart said that the person said. Plus David wallace is leading a team of people that have been locating thousands of full and partial historical papri of the new testament. So therefore he and his team are obviously way more knowlagble concerning those historical documents concerning the new testament than Bart is! So therefore I'm way more trusting of David wallace than I am of Bart Ehrman pertaining to all of the issues pertaining to the knowlege of the new testament. So I highly encourage you to check out some of the lectures and debates that include David wallace! Thanks! God bless you!
Lords Follower: Who is "...David wallace is leading a team of people that have been locating thousands of full and partial historical papri of the new testament..."? Do you mean DANIEL B. WALLLACE? The same WALLACE that made this apology to Dr Ehrman on WALLACE'S website ("The first thing to mention is that yes, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5345, published in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 83 (2018), is the same manuscript that I spoke about in the debate and blogged about afterward. In that volume the editors date it to the second or third century...Apology In my debate with Bart, I mentioned that I had it on good authority that this was definitely a first-century fragment of Mark. A representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral. However, the information I received and was assured to have been vetted was incorrect. It was my fault for being naïve enough to trust that the data I got was unquestionable, as it was presented to me. So, I must first apologize to Bart Ehrman, and to everyone else, for giving misleading information about this discovery. While I am sorry for publicly announcing inaccurate facts, at no time in the public statements (either in the debate or on my blogsite) did I knowingly do this. But I should have been more careful about trusting any sources without my personal verification, a lesson I have since learned....") Lords Follower: Consider making sure you have correct and complete information re: your comment before posting errors.
It always baffles me. "I weighed the possible explanations for some nonsense words written down on an ancient scroll and decided the most likely explanation is that a dude came back to life by the power of a god." REALLY? It's like these people have never heard of occam's razor.
You do realize that Occam's Razor, since the 14th century when it was introduced, is largely discredited since many discoveries from the 20th century until now, right? Occam's Razor appeals to simpler or simplest explanations. That is why, before the discovery of cells, and the discovery of the atom etc etc, it was assumed that simpler components must make up more complex components. It turns out that "the simplest" explanation is usually just as complex or more complex than the whole. Anyhow... I don't think you understand the concept. I could use the same idiotic analogies pertaining to many atheists. "I weighed the possible explanations for how all of the matter of the universe came into existence l and decided the most likely explanation is that it came from absolutely nothing." Anyhow, your comment is idiotic. The question would be "If God exists, then the resurrection of the dead is possible. Based on the historical facts, what is the best explanation for the narrative pertaining to Jesus's resurrection?" You may as well at least try to understand the subject in a logical sense...
Really? So you think the simplest explanation is that multiple people concocted a conspiracy to promote a false religion when there is no evidence they had anything to gain by doing so? And then were willing to suffer persecution and martyrdom for it?
Mike R. Licona argument is a shallow and very flaw attempt to make the NT look like a reliable historical document and he refuses to see he have no leg to stand on. You could use Homer to argue for the existence of siren with his poor reasoning.
I'm reminded of something Christopher Hitchens said. In the New Testament Jesus heals a blind man. Hitchens asks, why not just end all blindness? If you had unlimited power wouldn't you feed all the starving in the world instead of just the ones who gather around you? How much suffering has happened throughout human history while Jesus has been enjoying heaven. The biblical stories exist to entertain and give people comfort and hope. They're great stories and it seems like we need stories; maybe because cold hard Reality is often unpleasant.
Ray Cyst thats like saying why didnt god give human beings wings why didnt he give us better protection for our brains rather than just a skull why did he only create us to live to only 70 years old why does it take 20 years for the human body to be fully developed why did he have to send his son as a sactifice to humanity? Because things have to unfold does he just sit there snapping his fingers to make everything happen? Bang a universe snap, bang human suffering all gone snap or do events have to unfold? you could go on forever but it is what it is jesus healing a blind man is it not good?
The comforting lie is a real phenomenon. Almost every Christian I've met (including my entire family - I'm the only atheist) console themselves during their grief over losing a loved one that they'll see them again some day in heaven. They still cry buckets at the funerals tho, so you have to wonder just how much they believe it. I was having a discussion with a woman on the bus a few years ago about religion and she said her main reason for believing in Christianity was that it gave her hope that she'd see her late husband again some day. There's no real response to that unless you want to be a tactless jerk. I don't remember exactly what I said, but it was along the lines of, "I'm glad you have that hope. I personally don't have the same hope regarding my deceased loved ones." And we just changed the subject for the rest of the ride.
sam carter you believe in a god that watch while a grown men rape little girls everyday...and yet u believe god is loving and loves kids... your god is an ass. if she/he or it exist
Thank you Bart for all you do ☺️. You're awesome. In reading the comments, it's nice to see there are rational people out there who realize the whole resurrection story is all a fabrication to convert people to their faith
I feel like this isn't Ehrman's best debate. The good part is where they agree upon the existence of historical facts independently from belief and bias. In the last part however, Ehrman seems to be fishing for something when talking about miracles. "You move from history to faith." No he's not! Licona says he can leave 'miracle' out of the equation, and rightfully hypothesises resurrection as an inference to the best explanation for the (historically factual) testimony of some people claiming to have seen Jesus alive after his death. That's not faith, that's a legitimate, historical hypothesis. What would not be legitimate is to make 'miracle' an explanation for resurrection. But then again, that's not what Licona claims. TL;DR: Ehrman seems to be fishing for Licona to make the non-scholarly claim that 'miracle' is an argument for resurrection, when in fact Licona can do without and only claims that resurrection might be a good explanation for the _fact_ that people claim to have seen Jesus after his death.
blastscatter What contemporary extra biblical evidence is there of people claiming to see Jesus? This is a theological account and SEEMINGLY not a historical one.
The four gospel records predicted in other books: Ezekiel 1:10 KJV >As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle. Revelation 4:7 KJV >And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle. How the gospels records portray Jesus as: Matthew: Jesus as king (lion) Mark: Jesus as servant (ox/calf) Luke: Jesus as man (man) John Jesus as God (eagle) There are four 'branches' of Christ that represent the four gospel records: Matthew's gospel: "I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper" (Zechariah 9:9; Jeremiah 23:5 KJV) Mark's gospel: "behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH" (Zechariah 3:8 KJV) Luke's gospel: "Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH" (Zechariah 6:12 KJV) John's gospel: "the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious" (Isaiah 4:2, 40:9 KJV) The four gospel record portrayls of Jesus Christ in Philippians 2:5-11 KJV: v.7 Mark (servant): "but made himself of no reputation [no genealogy in Mark], and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" v.8 Luke (man): "and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." v.10 Matthew (king): "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;" v.11 John (God): "and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
![The Resurrection in its Cultural Context [feat. Dr. Bart Ehrman]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k2Z37xdpGpI/mqdefault.jpg)
I'd like to see Bart debate Mike (or anyone) about whether Jesus would recognise Evangelical Christianity as his own teaching :)
We need Bart to keep us, believers, in line. Too much nonsense. It is back to believers to do something good for society as a whole. Embrace big causes for the needy.
Noticed Licona didn't want to touch the ascension. It's more silly than the resurrection sounds. If you ascend as they claim Jesus did, you don't go to heaven, you go into orbit.
😁🤣🤣🤣
*A Story that Grew in the Telling*
The source evidence that exists that purports to show that Jesus "rose from the dead" actually indicates how this idea most likely developed and evolved over time. It indicates that the idea that Jesus was somehow "resurrected" was a way his followers dealt with his sudden and unexpected execution and that this idea developed from an abstract one into one of a more concrete, physical revivification. The contradictions in the various accounts, which date from the 50s AD through to the 90s-100 AD, show this process of development.
Thank you!!! :)
I'm surprised that Bart would argue in this way.
why?
Both naturalists and Christians must believe a miraculous event took place in the past. The naturalist must believe that dead chemicals arranged themselves to produce life, which has never been observed by anyone in history. The Christian must believe that a man arose from the dead, which has never been observed by anyone in history.
How is it not circular reasoning Bart? "Miracle's are not counted as a possibility when we look at history, therefore we can't prove Jesus rose from the dead". Is that not what you are implying?
If an event X has three possibilities: 1) miracle 2)caused naturally by Y 3) caused naturally by Z, and it's best explained by 1), then why is it wrong to conclude that by an inference to the best explanation?
Because you missed out that "X didnt actually happen" , that it was a legend. And using occams razor that's a far more probably answer than a miracle actually happened .............as we don't have single confirmed miracle , Christian based or not.
Really good debate.
Great points made on both sides.
However, I think Bart Ehrman proved his point that belief in the resurrection is a matter of faith, not evidence.
There is no evidence that there is a God, and there is certainly no evidence that a dead man got up from his grave and rose into heaven to this God.
Tim W
do you have evidence of the origin of life, the origin of this universe, and why only the planet earth is habitable by myriad of species -- the micro & macrocosm of life?
if you do not have evidence to support how you came into existence, does it mean you are a "delusional" being for believing something you do not have grasp or incapable of knowing?
isn't it analogous to Jesus resurrection story?
infact, Jesus resurrection story is backed up with written documents compared to the origin of the universe or the origin of life
yet, many evolutionists support evolution (eventhough they DO NOT exactly know the VERY ORIGIN OF LIFE)
56:21 haha, how can there still be scientists who don't believe we evolved? Can I take them some fossil layer records? that's too funny
QUICKENING: MY EXPERIENCE
When I was to be baptized or quickened by the power of the Holy Spirit in my late teens, I wasn't really so keen and focus.
After I was baptized with water on the sea, a week after, it was followed up by the Quickening of the Holy Spirit conducted by our resident pastor.
Dozens of us attended.
I wasn't really expecting for anything to happen at all. But, just plainly curious.
When Pastor Nelson laid his hand on me in prayer, then touched my forehead. In a split second, an explosion of glorious, expansive bright, whitish to golden light enveloped me whole. It was calming bright light, not so glaring to my eyes. I could see & feel it even when my eyes were tightly closed, all over me.
Then the heat on my forehead grew intense. It's like drilling/inscribing/writing something on my forehead that hurts a bit. When the heat entered on my forehead, it slowly turned cooler (not cold) then slowly travels down my face, throat then to my chest or belly area & stayed there.
I felt like my body was lifted up inches off the ground (though my feet still touching the ground) when I uttered syllables I couldn't control & comprehend. It's something like praising the Lord & thanking Him (I think).
The whole event lasted for 7 to 10 seconds or so, or maybe minutes (I couldn't really tell). But it seemed like it's "eternal"...
Overflowing Peace, Love, Joy & Happiness was what I felt that time, that I don't want it to end.
I remember tears run down my cheeks & asking myself why I cried when supposedly I was in extreme happiness.
I was conscious the whole time & can pinpoint the details, that's why I can still clearly describe it now like it has just happened a while ago, eventhough it happened 2 decades ago.
That indescribable experience really was beyond description. No lexicon of words can describe it.
Imagine your definition of extreme happiness you experienced it here on earth (example, you won 100Million dollars multiply that emotional happiness a million times over). That's what I exactly experienced!
I had not shared my Quickening experience to many, except a few (only recently), because I thought many experienced similarly to what I had.
Then I searched testimonies on UA-cam on what I experienced, I haven't had encountered similar to mine. I will try to search for more in the days to come.
Months ago, a pastor once told me it was "quickening".
I learned about the Quickening in one of the sermons of Pastor Nelson decades ago. I didn't grasp the full idea or concept about it, really. So, my knowledge & comprehension about Quickening wasn't stored in my memory bin. Until a pastor told me online about Quickening.
So, I researched about it. I stumbled across a short info about Quickening in Quora by Aaron Walton. (He studied Biblical Manuscripts, Bible Translation & volunteered for IGNP.)
This is what he posted in Quora:
" "The quickening spirit” is primarily a phrase found in the King James translation of the Bible and translations based on it. Unless I am mistaken, it is only in 1st Corinthians 15:45. Most translations translate it as “life-giving spirit”. The King James elsewhere uses the phrase “he will quicken the dead” which seems to mean to give life to the dead. So “quickening spirit” seems to mean “life-giving spirit”.
The passage 1st Corinthians 15 is about the ressurection from the dead that Christians believe and Paul is making an argument that the ressurection will happen. In this particular verse he uses “the last Adam” as a reference to Jesus in order to draw a parallel between Adam and Jesus.
All of this is to say that “quicken” in King James English should be understood as reanimating the dead or ressurecting the dead." End here.
MY POINT OF VIEW
Personally, this is my wisdom or understanding of the Quickening:
I was once dead in spirit because of Adam's sin, plus my own natural sins or my sinful nature. When I was converted & baptized, my spirit was "quickened" or given life. That's why I experienced some supernatural spiritual phenomena (expansive & immense bright light that enveloped me whole; a fire as if drilling/inscripting/writing something on my forehead and later, cooled down & slowly settled on my chest/belly area; then mumbling of incomprehensible words while my whole body was almost lifted off the ground but still touching the ground, then tears roll down my cheeks eventhough I was extremely happy that time, so on and so forth).
So I was basically "dead" but was made alive or "quickened" by the power of the Holy Spirit. I stand corrected on this point of view. I may be wrong on this.
BIBLICAL SUPPORT:
The Quickening
1 Corinthians 15: 1-58
King James Version (KJV)
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.
The Quickening
1 Corinthians 15: 1-58
New International Version (NIV)
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed- 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.
The term is not biblical, although your reference was a quaint extraction from 1 Cor. 15:45, but not implicit. Yes, “the quickening” can refer to a person “receiving the Holy Spirit” but I’ll offer a caution here. A Christian receives the Holy Spirit when they receive Christ. Those events are not separated as they were in the embryonic stage of the Church. The term gain favor and gained ground with charismatic circles, as it was exploited by Hollywood. The Quickening is a phenomenon in the Highlander films and television series. Beheading a character known as an "Immortal" produces a powerful energy release from their body called a "Quickening." The series producers stated, "The power of the Quickening is the equivalent to a major electrical storm hitting-windows explode, lights short circuit, it is almost as if the victorious Immortal is in the center of a lightning storm. The idea of a power discharge and experience combined with a Christian experience was cohesively enhanced right after the 1986 release.
Much of what is touted as Spiritual anointing by the charismatics is merely the awakening of the Kundalini by means of ancient occult methods. Kundalini is a well known occult practice, deriving its origin from India. It involves bodily manifestations as a consequence to the ‘Awakening of the Kundalini.’ This is not a mystical fabrication or belief system, but a practice that is strongly promoted by the New Age Movement. The Kundalini awakening does contain the most unbelievable expanded states of reality, enlightenment, and absolute ecstasy and it is extremely contagious. However, like crack stimulates dopamine, a Kundalini awakening opens wide a person's spiritual core, removing safeguards placed by the Creator. The end results can rip one's spiritual fabric, leaving a soul open to potentially malevolent powers.
At the beginning of the Florida Outpouring, referring to Todd Bentley, Fresh Fire Ministries and Lakeland Revival back in 2012, Todd claimed that God had requested that he lay hands on everyone present for ten nights of special transfer or impartation. What resulted was transmuted power derived from the occult manifestation called the shaktipat. “Shakti” means power or energy, and “pat” means transfer. Kundalini awakening or (shaktipat) is the infusion of energy from the spiritual master to the seeker, bringing about the awakening of the seeker’s own inherent spiritual power, called “Kundalini.” Todd described this transferable “anointing” as the most contagious he had ever experienced. He said "I used to feel the anointing in my hand; now I feel it in my spine." It is true that the occult Kundalini awakening does indeed start in the lower spine.
The meetings which mystic Hindu gurus hold are called ‘Darshan’. At these meetings devotees go forward to receive spiritual experience from a touch by the open palm of the hand or gathering of fingers, often to the forehead, by the guru in what is known as the Shakti Pat or divine touch. In a group setting, the transfer of this power will spread like fire to all in attendance who are mentally open and spiritually compromised. They will receive the touch which results in all manner of physical manifestations. The results vary from person to person. Involuntary bodily movements; jerking, tremors, shaking; spontaneous vocalizations; burning sensation; sounds in the head; confusion and stupor; gyrating and pulsating; or when slain, unable to move. These manifestations are called 'Kriyas' by the Hindus. Often devotees move on to higher states of spiritual consciousness and become inert physically and appear to slip into unconscious stupor. This state is called 'Samadhi' and it leads to a deeper spiritual experience. The Buddhist suttas mention that samadhi practitioners may develop supernormal powers that can lead to very uncomfortable occult manifestations.
The late John Murray, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, who died in 1975 said “the difference between truth and error is not a chasm but a razor’s edge.”
There will be many false workers, or many “Who are called by His name”, but very few will be genuinely authentic, this is just the facts (Matthew 7:22). The anointed servant are those who work without seeking recognition or fanfare as Christ and the Apostles humbly served. The Holy Spirit filled doesn’t seek fame, recognition, money and may never be known, such is the humble and contrite of heart. Those of the Pharisee spirit, egocentric and endued by principalities and powers, seek an exuberant audience, accolades, affirmation, financial gain and make a spectacle of the precious gifts of God like a side show circus. Those given to the extreme charismatic (emotional or fleshly) bent are susceptible prey to these types of leaders, whereas such is the power of hypnotic manipulation through the drone of their voice.
bart muslims would love if u can research a bit about quran's view on jesus (peace be upon him).
M Umair Javed that’s a double edge sword because if he place the same scrutiny into the Koran then he’d show how unreliable and false that book is as well. Bigger question is, if he did would you accept his conclusions based on the same methodology used to dispute the Bible as you would used to dispute the Koran?
It seems from your comment that you have already concluded that the quran is unreliable.
Muslims have different view. They believe he was a person and say that it was made to appear as though he died on the cross.
So Bart gets offended that God won't answer his prayers, because people are suffering. then he continues to write 30 books all surrounding Christianity, seems pretty hypocritical. He spends his whole life making money off of something he doesn't believe in anymore, still leaning on Jesus for $$$$$$$ MONEY hahaha
What? Hold up! Licona first says that people relating the Jesus story orally had a tradition of accuracy. Then he goes on to say when they finally got around to writing the story down ,there was "elasticity" WTF!
“narrative elasticity”
lol.
One second he says mark claims he is god, then he cant find it, then its apocalyptic.. then it's not. This fool Licona, just makes any word fit anything... nothing means anything when he is done.
44:15 in case you want to search out how this term is used.
Mike's claim on the accuracy of oral traditionmegaphone. I am African and 3 of my grand parents I got to meet, told historical stories very differently, most times only the moral take away is the same. The difference between the recitation of Torah and verbatim recitation of numerous events in the new testament is that the Torah was a book they revisited over and over again as a point of reference. They studied it for a long time before being bestowed the honor of Ben Torah. But these events like sermon on the mountain, etc happened just once. What's the chance that these different individuals will remember them verbatim? Fairly slim, and What's the chance that they all had the same take away from the same sermon? Slim. I even doubt these huge number people heard his sermon effectively with no mass communication technologies like megaphones. So no Mike.
“you’re doing an ad hominem argument here”
No he isn’t. lol. He’s saying the resurrection of Jesus isn’t a historical fact. It’s a matter of faith.
Bart's comment at 48:45 "My view is that Jesus and the Apostles would not recognize today's Evangelical Christian as a Christian. Because Evangelical Christianity is so far removed from anything Jesus ever preached." This statement is unequivocal truth! Reminds me of Mahatma Gandhi statement, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” A good book that illustrates the current mindset among the spiritually meaningful but institutionally removed is written by Dan Kimball, "They Like Jesus but Not the Church: Insights from Emerging Generations". Although written in 2007, the book's content is still very relevant.
S.E. Ray
When i tell ppl u do not follow anything that jesus said they look dumb founded. So much for reading comprehension.
Unbelievers commenting on the conduct of Believers now, this should be interesting... What's your gripe, why aren't modern Christians following what the Son of God said in your opinion?
My comment was framed as "spiritually meaningful but institutionally removed" which does not at all imply an unbeliever, but one that has been removed from the candor of religious pretense. Ordained in 1986 and still a director of a world missions organization, I retain my faith, but spurn any fallacious community of pseudo-Christians. Just as the parable of the sower of the seed in the three Synoptic Gospels illustrates, most seed will fall on shallow hearts, where only a small percentage will ever yield results. Add to that how Matthew 7:22 reveals that multitudes will claim heritage to the faith, but they will be turned aside for being entirely false and self-deceived. In essence, what Bart states is also resonated by the writers of the Canon; Jesus would have nothing to do with what many claim as Christianity. Bart responded personally to my comment in an email with, “It’s one of the great ironies!”
So... You're not going to state what makes modern Christians less Christian than you? You just wrote high handed nonsense and didn't even answer my question. So again, give an actual example of Christian hypocrisy, or "irony". I'm not going to keep asking, do you have anything substantial or you're just here to pat yourself on the back?
"Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." well Bart is correct
150 years of scientific evidence aren't enough for them to believe in evolution, but four anonymous and contradictory gospels written decades after the events are all they need to believe in the resurrection.
Jonah Conner HA. You're spot on.
Actually, most Christians believe in evolution. However, several people dying for something they "made up" is completely unprecedented in human history. There's not a whole lot of observable evidence however, in the past 150 years, that humans, chimps, rats, worms, slugs, thorn bushes, algae and weeds, all share a common ancestor, which is the claim of Darwinian Evolution (as opposed to lateral evolution).
Good try though.
Right back at you. There is plenty of evidence that the Scriptural prophetic utterances are valid. Plenty! The problem is that most people are brainwashed into believing that slime plus time created Charlize Theron and thereby refuse to investigate the prophetic claims of Scripture. Have you?
Matt M Nobody died for something they didn’t believe? Do you know the history of Mormonism? Have you ever heard of any of the cult leaders worldwide that died claiming to be divine? That happens far more than you think bro
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that all these living things are related, it's just not the kind that you would see while living your every day life. It's in the DNA, and our eyes can't see that without a microscope.
The accuracy and precision of "oral tradition" rely on "exclusion of personal opinion and selection."
Meanwhile, the "elasticity" which Dr Licona tolerates completely contradicts the fact that personal opinion needs to be excluded in order to have an accurate oral tradition.
side note : The debate topic was actually "is there GOOD evidence for the resurrection" , it's a very importantly distinction, they may well be SOME evidence, found in some ancient anonymously written text written by people who's job it is to show that it happened , but that it is not contemporary, not unbiased to the subject matter, non eyewitnesses ( not that eyewitness testimony is reliable anyhow) and written by people who were not from the area or fluent in the language the stories emanated from. and written 35-60 years after the pro-ported events happened........... anyhow......
48 minutes = slam dunk ( but paraphrased)
ML = The vast majority of people in the society of Biblical Literature believe my side of the story
BE = that's because the vast majority of Biblical scholars are Christian
ML - Oh just c'mon Bart........ thats simply not true
BE -er.......OK name them
ML - names two out of thousands of possible
BE - eh? ........these TWO people you have just specifically cited to bolster your point, both identify themselves as being Christian? Do you accept that?
ML - cough - they aren't real christians......
BE- if Jesus and the disciples had a look at the average Christian they would would be horrified.
ML - squirms and tries to deflect the conversation
JB - cough.....we have to take a break.......
judge for yourselves who has the stronger argument
Interesting discussion but I wish they had spent more time arguing for and against the evidence behind each position. Instead, Most of their disagreement came from how they used the word history. Bart uses it in its dictionary 1st form: "The study of past events". His complaints revolve around what is and isn't accepted in the formal study of history. Micheal seems to be using the second dictionary definition of the word: "the whole series of past events." But he only touched briefly on why the accounts could be considered reliable. They kept talking past each other because of this disagreement on how to use the word history and we didn't get much meat out of the discussion. It was still great to listen to though.
Practically the first thing Licona said was he wants to prove the resurrection. That’s not how the process is supposed to work.
My favorite part is when Licona states he’s a skeptic and second guesses everything!! Hahaha hahaha
I laughed as well. Mainly because he says it in almost every introduction of himself. It's just a rhetorical device he uses to say, "I'm not crazy but I just happen to believe things that "sound" crazy but I have three, no two, no one, indisputable fact (disputed by some) that I build an amazing ad hoc inferential nexus that leads to the resurrection of Jesus."
Almost as as amusing as assuming that you are detached, objective and have no vested interest in unbelief.
Many people claim to have seen Elvis after his death. Does that mean he never died or rose from the dead?
How many people went to their deaths before denying Elvis?
TheHypGuy
How many Muslims go to their death believing in their religion?
Carlo Valente Were they? Or did people like Irenaus just make those stories up later?
Yea same thing with Hitler.
@@MasterShadowEroticHypnosis yeah.. :sigh: so sad...
Thanks for your lectures. I really appreciate them since I finally decided to have a deeper look at my Revolutionary Kosmik Kowboy Hero from an attempted historical perspective. You and I have been on a similar journey. Great food for thought. How 'bout this: a physical resurrection without being zapped alive by God? Ye Olde Swoon Theory. I know it might be a stretch, but Jesus apparently lived a healthy life. Walked all over the place under open skies, ate a Kosher "Mediterranean" diet, got a lot of positive feedback, probably felt great--in other words, he was most likely very fit and had a lot endurance. And if he was a carpenter, that's getting paid to work out. What if he survived crucifixion? Maybe the Roman centurions--or whoever they hired--were in a hurry to join all the festivities of the largest party of the year in Jerusalem? Thought, "He looks dead to me."? (My understanding is that the crucifiers avoided arteries--maybe use tourniquets--so the crucified wouldn't bleed out quickly and thus prolong the torture and humiliation through asphyxiation.) Didn't I read somewhere that Pilate was surprised by how quickly Jesus died? Maybe in the coolness of the burial cave--or wherever--he woke up? Maybe lived a day or two longer and freaked out some disciples, thus giving credence to divinity? Such has happened before--in real-time history--right? (And not that this would make a gigantic difference...)
this isnt a debate... this is a world class scholar embarrassing a sunday school teacher. If you dont know who is who - thats a problem.
AurochsReborn:
I think there were embarrassments on both sides.
Yes I agree - Licona is the former and Ehrman is a joke. This is clearly evidenced by Licona's flushing of Ehrman's effluent that the Gospel of Mark doesn't articulate the divinity of Christ when Jesus CLEARLY claimed the power to forgive sins for which the Pharisees labelled Him a blasphemer: "Who can forgive sins but God alone". Psssssst - in other words, Jesus is Divine. Ehrman is a joke. Mark is CLEARLY expressing the divinity of Christ!
Likewise Ehrman's ridiculous contention that the Gospel of John doesn't deal with an apocalyptic Jesus who John CLEARLY identifies as Judge. Ummmmm, if Jesus is given the power to 'JUDGE' how is that not 'apocalyptic'?
Sorry AurochsReborn - Ehrman is a lightweight feeder of infantile atheists who desire to be spoon-fed what they want to hear rather than actually read the Scriptures and think for themselves.
You're so bias that it has clouded your judgement. They both sound like scholars who care a lot about the topic.
Objection: We don't know that Paul was ever "Jesus' foe" and then converted. We just know that he said that's what happened. You don't think that maybe Paul, a born salesman if the Roman Empire ever saw one, didn't know that a dramatic conversion story like this was good for pushing his church? Just a little?
I of course can't prove that Paul lied about anything. But neither can anyone else prove that he was truthful. To believe him is a matter of faith. And faith is not evidence.
I`m not a aware, that historians or NT scholars (atheist, agnostic, christian, jewish or whatever) at any know university dispute the historic reliability of Pauls life and persecution of the early church. If there are any, you can count them on one hand. Even Ehrmann doesnt dispute it. You are following conspiracy theories without any historical basis.
tight spot for Mike at 48 mins - he gets challenged and then tries to swerve but changing the subject. Duly noted.
There is something that I've never understood. How come that after his resurrection Jesus was on earth for forty days among his fellows and almost nothing has been reported of this period. Dozens of stories before his death, sayings, parables, etc and nothing after? One week preaching about a great message before the resurrection and then for forty days, when there was no more doubts that he was some kind of a god, nothing. Is it plausible?
That's a good point which I hadn't considered, would be interesting in knowing why too.
Don’t people understand that miracles happen?? Geez
Licona offer three 'minimal facts'. As soon as Erhman dismissed that as one fact, Licona immediately pivoted to say, "but you can't just rely on a few facts!"
Licona should have cited Mark 13 to show continuity between St. Mark’s and St. John’s Gospel.
This guy Licona is an example of the flaws of an apologetic.
No consideration for historical facts.
"Elasticity" he's says.. oh man.
A New Historiographical Approach or the Same Old Apologetic Claptrap?
Here's Licona's suggestion for how a historian goes about determining that a miracle has occurred: "We may recognize that an event is a miracle when the event (a) is extremely unlikely to have occurred, given the circumstances and/or natural law and (b) occurs in an environment or context that is charged with religious significance. In other words, the event occurs in a context where we might expect a god to act. The stronger the context is charged in this manner, the stronger the evidence becomes that we have a miracle on our hands, if the historical evidence for the event itself is good." (p.163) In other words, the historian must have some objective criteria for determining what kind of things God is likely to do before he can determine that God did something. What that criteria might be, he never tells us.
Licona tries to hide the circularity of his arguments within hundreds of pages spent discussing methodology, but it cannot be done. "However, if we take into consideration the existence of a God who may have reasons for raising Jesus from the dead, the probability that Jesus rose is increased significantly. For example, if a historian holds that God does not exist(atheism) or that God doesn't intervene in human affairs(deism), she will also hold that Jesus' resurrection is implausible. However, if she holds that God exists, that he acts within human history and that Christianity is probably true, she is most likely to hold that Jesus' resurrection is quite plausible." In other words, if a historian already believes that the central tenets of Christianity are true, she is likely to conclude that this central tenet of Christianity is plausible.
There is nothing new here.
From what I gather, Michael couldn't set aside Theological presuppositions when Bart's clearly trying to demonstrate how Historical Approach to Jesus' done?
Bart commented: 1. "Jesus and the Apostles would not recognize today's Evangelical Christian as a Christian. Because Evangelical Christianity is so far removed from anything Jesus ever preached."
"Narrative elasticity" comes off more and more as not quite a vote of confidence for Oral Tradition, or deliberate falsehood. On the one hand, Licona applauds the rigor of ancient rabbinic oral tradition, compared to how we use our memory today, then shifts gears rapidly to excuse contradictions as "time compression" and something we cannot judge by our standards. Maybe his bias is clouding his deeper take on the early Christian accounts.
Bart Erhman is so dishonest. Sells himslf as agnostic but infact does not give room for God's existence. When it serves him, he claims every scholar agrees with him; when cornered he claims all those scholars are Christians even if some of them aren't, strictly speaking, Christians. Debates and discussions are about winning arguments to him.
Miracle is a cop-out concept. Devine is another one. These terms are outside recorded history of events.
So is the beginning of the universe
Licona does seem like a sane apologist. It is quite refreshing to hear so few logical fallacies from a theist apologist.
But, then the resurrection is mentioned and the delusion sets in again and all arguments are nothing but logical fallacies. Now, an argument could still have a good point and be correct, but they are nothing _but_ logical fallacies. No points, no logic and nothing coherent that follows from any of the premises even if any premise is true.
Stories clearly changed before they were written down. Stories clearly changed radically and significantly after they were written between gospels. Even if hear say was reliable and you grant the writers 'elasticity', there is no reason whatsoever to assume that any resurrection occurred ever. People could be hallucinating, lying, exaggerating, etc. and they probably were doing at least one of those and possibly more of those options at the same time. No evidence suggests that they actually witnessed something real.
What Licona is struggling with is that if you don't know the cause for something, THEN YOU DON'T BASE A CONCLUSION ON WISHFUL THINKING! And I learned that scholars aren't philosophers. Bart made me think they are, because he is. :p
They covered a lot, but the three facts they largely agree on. As far as the visions it didn't seem Bart was willing to admit the group hallucinations/visions, but that there were at least multiple. Hallucination could be possible unless it was a group. It would be weird if these people talked and all saw the same thing. As far as lying or exaggeration goes it doesn't make sense because these people were willing to die for their faith.
Setekh and dad yes we
I wonder what the statistics are in terms of people who decide to take their religion they've been born into seriously (as Mike licona did) and discovering that they were indeed born Into the correct religion...
How many times does Licona use the word "evidence" ?? :P
Mark admitted to oral elasticity......... Waoooo! So we can now conclude that whole resurrection gig is questionable.
Ehrman is a historian, so why do you keep asking him about faith? Faith is personal.
This stuff gets super frustrating.
If Jesus was god why wouldnt he just write everything down himself and be done with. Why make it so complicated that we dont have original writings and they all need to be translated and it all has to be taken on interpretation and faith? Why not make it clear and reasonable for everyone to accept so that there is no debate needed. It really doesnt make any sense
The Yeti Paul..I TOTALLY agree.
It does not seem that hard or unreasonable.
Sadly all this s... has helped to make me like Bart...an agnostic.
Perhaps so that mankind would use free will to choose to believe and have faith, which is necessary in rejecting temptation and the whispering of the Liar, aka Satan.
If the inference to the best explanation is a miracle then it's clearly not the best explanation
Why not?
There's always a more probable explanation that a miracle, because essentially any competing explanation is more probable.
Tamlinearthly That sounds like flawed reasoning to me.
@@DavidVonR How so? Let's take Mike Licona's own example of a man being decapitated and then returning back a few hours later with his head reattached. I would posit that a natural explanation, such as he has access to advanced secret medical technology, or that he's an alien, or that he preformed a very convincing illusion would all be infinitely more plausible because none of them depend on a SUPERNATURAL explanation.
I listened to part of it. Stopped listening when it became apparent that this wasn't a debate, which is formally structured and gives equal time to both participants. This is a conversation with a partial moderator. I'm surprised Ehrman agreed to this.
Laurie, I noticed as well, it comes down to the fact that Ehrman can debate both of them at once, without losing his composure; they are doing "Superstition" he is doing "History" makes it easy
I find it much more interesting that it is not a formal debate. I like to here the points contradicted immediately without the usual: let me say again what i said before there are 4 undisputed facts etc etc etc
The hypothesis showed faith. Unfortunately, not fact. All religious readings do, however, base , biasly lean toward faith. So, maybe our little facts we lil humans on earth have, are many steps down from faith. Fact is less than Faith. Faith is more real than fact. , so on.. as stupid as things are today, I wouldn't doubt it.
most of the christians bart debates are dishonest grifters but I actually like Mike - he seems like a decent dude.
Licona - and all these sophists - are guilty of the "begging the question" fallacy. It makes me cringe when I hear this nonsense. Shame on them for constructing arguments that are similar to those which Nigerian scam 'artists' use.
..where is the official book of jesus ? I always wondered 🤔🤔🤔these fictitious books called mark, Matthew, luke,and john were written decades ago and what's more interesting is that these names were given many many years after these were written.
Sir, what do you think about there are two Jesus in the gospel.
Do you have a video talking about this two jesus?
Thank you in advance.
"Hi ladies and germs, and welcome to my 49th appearance. It's great to be here in the fabulous Herod Room at the spectacular One Seasons Judea! I'll be here all week ... well, until Friday, anyway ... maybe Thursday ...
What Licona does not admit is that if his own rules are respected all of the Greek myths are true as well.
They probably were.
Oh yea, what does that say in the image on screen? "They debate key historical facts about the resurrection." Wow! These are by no means facts! Absolutely not fact! But there is a true Father of Christ (the Word), and there are multitudes of spirit beings that exist without flesh, outside of space and time, that never end and have everlasting life. There are also heavens, beyond the firmament, beyond the astral heavens, and they are spoken of often. If one wishes to limit their studies to one book provided by organized religion, they do themselves a great injustice. Seek and you will find.
No it is not a matter of faith, nor of belief, nor is it within your religion. The truth is far beyond this, and is not easy to put into text of any language. But it is available, and this truth is within each of us, but takes many lifetimes to gain. Sure Jesus appeared to others after his death, but this was his will to let others envision him, to leave a few messages before returning to his place with the Father. There is no mystery here at all. Humans seem so ignorant to me, or they do not find time to come to know the real truth. Your final exam is coming soon. Study now.
the problem is the claim that the body was physical. Jesus appears in a room, he meets two on the road to Emmaus (who don't recognise him ) and then disappears. Spiritualists say we all survive death and spirits can materialise for a time. That would be a better explanation -though the doubting Thomas stuff and the bodily resurrection is probably the Jewish theology. Paul says we are not resurrected in a flesh and blood body but a new glorious body-again that fit in with the Spiritualist approach -and not just them . Whether they are right is another matter but there are empirical studies.
The "inference to the best explanation" is not that Frodo destroyed the One Ring in fires of Mount Doom; as witnessed by Sam, his enemy Gollum, and the Fellowship of the Ring. It's that an Englishman made it all up. People lie.
Really, so multiple people fabricated a religion, despite the fact that they were persecuted and at least some of them were martyred for it, and promoted it while gaining nothing for it and never recanted their testimonies?
The individuals promoting this also claimed to have been eyewitnesses to the alleged events.
There's thousands of gods and tens of thousands of people fabricating religion littered across history. You act like this would be a unique occurrence, David... How many Egyptians died while being persecuted by YHWH during the Exodus? Does that mean their gods were the true ones?
Even if one grants Christians can squeeze out some information in the bible that Jesus resurrected, their level of certainty should at least give them pause to use the book to hate people or get laws pass to affect the rest of us.
16:17
>Historians don't just take and isolate a single fact. When we consider hypotheses and what occurred in past we gather as much data as possible
>minimal facts approach
pick one
"And so we can say with virtual certainty that there were Christians with information about Jesus from within a year or two at the very latest, of the traditional date of his death and that Paul knew at least something about what these people were saying about Jesus." - Bart Ehrman (Did Jesus Exist?, Pge 125)
So.....therefore the supernatural is real and there is a god and that god sent some portion of himself to earth and that sin is real and original sin is real and that this human version of god died for sins etc....?
At 36:20 the discussion is over with one simple question that Licona can't answer :)
Paul actually says the opposite of "I got this from the Jerusalem Apostles" he says, "For the gospel I preached is not of human origin." Gal 1:11
"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." Gal 1:12
"My immediate response was not to consult any human being..." Gal 1:16
"I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later, I returned to Damascus." Gal 1:17
"Then after 3 years (!), I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days."
So, tell me Licona...is Peter lying?
Can someone recommend a good apologist to listen to in these Debates. Thus far the pinnacle has been William Lane Craig and that is sad because he is a pseudo intellect after you watch enough of his Debates. Craig is light years above a Mike Licona, Matt Slick, Braxton Hunter or Ray Comfort though.
Dr. James White. Watch his debate with Ehrman
Sam Harris said in a debate with Craig, that William Lane Craig "[...] puts the fear of God in many of my fellow atheists", but Mitch Rhodes thinks he is a pseudo intellect. Sure...
Matt slick is cancer and his own daughter became an atheist.
WLC is very good but some of his views just seem odd to me. Like molonism.
Ed feser is very good but i think there are problems with thomism, especially in terms of how it relates to the trinity.
Religious logic: anything I want to believe is indisputable historical fact.
*ATHEIST LOGIC* : anything I want to believe or don't want to believe is indisputable fact.
+BloodTar Why would anyone want to believe that there is no life after death? This makes no sense whatsoever. There is nothing about atheism which fulfills any wishful thinking. There is only the ability to process evidence of the lack of evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being.
@@ianrwood21 As an Atheist you deny a god and a hell. It is comfortable for people who wish to live by their own desires without being judged at the End of the day. So there is also wishful thinking in being Atheist, so you dont need to take Moral responsibility of your life.
Who would not want to be their own judge in court, If i you did something wrong. So this Argument works in both ways.
BOOM!
Mic drop at just past the one hour mark from Bart. With Licona severely on the ropes.
OHH BTW. The actual real discussion starts at the ten min mark.
Ehrman destroyed Licona!
I don’t think so
And don’t forget - one can still trust in God - that He exists - without believing in the N T Jesus - or take it as a fact.
If you close your eyes hard enough, you can believe literally anything.
I click my heels 3 times and then wish I was a fairy! And EVERYONE in class calls me a fairy when I do that!
U Malm quick facts the earliest book in the Bible in the letter to the Thessalonians which dates 50 ad in it Paul talks about the churches in Judea and the father the son and the holy spirit with the resurrection.
John wrote from the perspective that Yeshua was the Word of God. Johns prologue to the book, chapter 1, is about the Word. Not necessarily about God, but Gods Word. God is His Word, but John is defining the Word, which is the law and prophets. The subject is the Word. The beginning John is writing about is when the Torah, the Word of God, was given to the people. This is the beginning of the Word; its not about creation. The Word became flesh. Yeshua spoke everything the Father told him. John is testifying that the Father sent the messiah and spoke through him. John is not saying Yeshua is God.
Why are people so ready to believe that 1 Corinthians 15 is an early creed going back to a few years after Jesus supposedly died?
If it was an early creed that was known at the time that Paul was writing (circa 55 AD) why do none of the gospel authors seem to be aware of it? None of the resurrection accounts in the gospels match what is in 1 Corinthians despite them being written only 15- 40 years after Paul was writing. This 'so called 'creed' appears nowhere but 1 Corinthians.
As for Licona's suggestion that he got this from Peter / James - Paul never suggests that he got anything at all from the apostles or from any man. In fact he stresses that he didn't and that what he received was from revelation.
1 Corinthians 15:6 says "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." A creed that goes back to a few years after the event it describes wouldn't include a statement that most of them were still alive.
We don't have any accounts from any of the people mentioned by Paul claiming that Jesus appeared to them. Paul is talking about roughly 585 people and we have nothing from any of them. All 1 Corinthians 15 provides evidence of is Pau's claim to have seen the risen Jesus and even that is only valid if the 'creed' was originally part of the epistle rather than a later insertion.
Value the gospel of John over the other three, but these four are far from all. Also wonder why most including these two Professors, only seem to speak of a single compiled book that limits what text were even included by a council so long ago. For me true Christians predated this Council of Nicaea, had much greater knowledge then is spoken of by disciples that Christ himself tells us did not even know him, at least most. Also, in today's times, most do not even give Christ nor the truth much attention. Even these two here spend too much time speaking of this one book. But no flesh resurrected.
That’s what you call blind faith, emotions overriding reason. If at least they would acknowledge that some things they take as history and others as faith..none of the hearsay “Evidence”, “Facts” would have any weight in a court of Law.
And then at min 1:03:00, Ad populum... And even if it was true what you are saying, that's because historians never investigate miracles... But it isn't. Historians do count miracle as a possibility for a miracle claim, obviously it should be counted as a possibility for an event before refuting it, and if it's the most plausible explanation, then it's reasonable to believe in it.
An event doesn't need to be considered as possibly a miracle if it is never claimed to be miraculous. But when it does claim to be miraculous, then it automatically counts as a possibility that historians need to investigate. For events never claimed as miraculous, they don't need to. They just take a look at the natural possibilities, not the supernatural. I highly suggest you review your philosophical reasoning
We do the same for fairy tales, big foot, or anything. It claims to be supernatural, so we investigate any historical data on it. But we don't have any historical data on it, so we conclude we don't have good reasons let alone any reasons to believe in it
So what happened to the NT being written by the "Holy Spirit"
Mike kept saying "Everyone is going to be biased." Really? How can he make such a declarative statement? This guy's a professor somewhere?
Thanks for posting this
Its no longer Muslim Christian debate but Christians to Christian debate concerning christianity omg this is confusing.
There are five aspects of a generation. If you really read the bible and understood it like you claim, you would know that at least. Genesis 6:3 the days of man are 120 years; the same amount as Moses and the time it took to build the ark of Noah, as in the days of... A generation for the nation is 50 years known as a Jubilee and 40 for that time of Exodus in the desert; illustrated by the days on the mount of God and Christ time in the desert. Abraham and Isaac had a 100 year generation separation. 70 years spoken by Jeremiah and Daniel for the appointed time of Israel to restore and rebuild to Messiah; ALSO written as the life span of a man of 70 years and 80 for a healthy man.
Now the times to match to the end of 2017, 1897 1st Zionist congress = 120, 1917 Balford decoration = 100, 1947 decoration signed by Eisenhower = 70, 70 from 1897 is 1967 6 day war = 50. Now the one generation not present in the 120 is the 40 year generation. You can say what you want to your own detriment but what you are saying about the law and the prophets is a lie. There prophecies are accurate and most are not only for past fulfillment of Christ but also HIS Very Soon return. Happy Hanukkah/dedication, feast of tabernacles of the Maccabees John 10:22-23. The secret is in the feasts and the menorah. Buy a clue if you need to. Your wisdom is counted as foolishness for your pride has blinded you. You yourself are a fulfillment of prophecy just not in a good way.
you are incoherent
Its useless to use the argument from authority and say the majority of scholars agree Jesus was raised from the dead, when the reason people get into scholarship in the first place, like Bart, is usually to affirm what they already believe, i.e. Christianity........ and then to better equipped to defend it.
Agree!!! When you start smth only to defend that smth you're losing the fun of studying.
1 Corinthian's :15..3 -8 is an interpolation and talks in terms of a later Christian theology... very anachronistic...
Greg Rhodes 1 Corinthians is dated by all scholar to written in 55 ad including Bart erhman and in the book it is talking to an existing church and discusses all core church doctrine. Father son holy spirit, death resurrection, atonement, the Eucharist .
Ehrman says name a secular historian that thinks Jesus rose from the dead... If that isn't a facepalm I don't know what is. Then, as if it couldn't get anymore absurd, he says regardless where the evidence leads, miracles aren't admissible as a best explanation. That's abject nonsense, if it is something that goes outside the laws of nature it's by definition a supernatural occurrence. Ehrman has to impose his own rule that miracles are impossible to maintain his sad and fatal agnosticism.
Why is that a facepalm? If Jesus had really risen from the dead would everyone have automatically become a messianic Jew? If it's a fact, it's a fact no matter what you believe about its implications or its relationship to any religion. Besides, historians in ancient times did record reportedly supernatural events. Tacitus wrote about a woman giving birth to a snake and an appearance by the mythical Phoenix. Herodotus reported mythological and religious stories even though he didn't think they were real historical events.
You can have a scientific fact, supported by evidence. Or a historical fact, supported by multiple reports from disinterested parties. Or an article of faith, something with no evidence nor historical sources which is believed based only upon folk tales or edicts.
Miracles are impossible. That's the point. It's when God breaks the rules of the Matrix.
A miracle is, by definition, a unique and supernatural event.
That is exactly why Bart says that to evoke miracle is to move beyond historiography and into faith.
It is a matter of method.
Even if miracles occur, they are by definition the least probable explanation and therefore not accessible to historical method.
To evoke miracle is to evoke the least probable explanation, which is why no historian is able to use that explanation credibly.
That is true even if miracles really occur: it is a limitation of the historical method.
Note that Ehrman did not say that miracles don’t occur. He said that, even if they do occur, they can not be demonstrated using historical method.
The problem is that people slide from historical argument into a faith-based, miraculous conclusion without acknowledging that their methodology has fundamentally changed.
That is exactly what Prof Licona has done here, and Prof Ehrman was correct to call him out on it.
That's not what was said at all... What the Hell. You say miracles are automatically the least likely explanation, let's say that's true regardless that miracles have happened. The whole point, is what is the BEST explanation.
Now this whole thing with unbelievers dealing with the facts of the Holy Bible, is attempting to get out of what it says. If it says he healed the blind well it was a magic trick, etc. But this is about the big one, the resurrection.
What Ehrman said is miracles aren't allowed through the historical method (in so many words). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that is a biased, gross presupposition that immediately excludes Christianity, replete with miracles. Also implies the Bible is fraudulent. And yet... Any honest agnostic will say yes of course maybe the Bible is truthful, but then say what is the evidence (only a dishonest cretin would demand proof). So then we embark on "evidence" and we're told miracles are inadmissible explanation??? C'mon. This was one of the worst I've seen from Ehrman, you must know that too. And trust me I rate him highly among infidel apologists, it's not an insult.
If we had video footage of the resurrection, we wouldn't then say it's forbidden in historical scholarship 200 years later. As it is, we have it in the best recording available, with a heck of a lot of evidence, and is CERTAINLY a viable option explaining what we know happened back then. And let's face it, everything accords with it (tomb being empty etc, you can make up a reason why it is empty, I'm pointing out resurrection fits with available evidence, there's nothing that says NOT a resurrection).
Someone else here said why is it a facepalm... If they believe the resurrection they're Christian, by default. It's a resurrection. Divine miracle. It's a supernatural intercession you can't not believe in the God if He has gained Himself glory via miracle.
It's a very straight forward argument. If a proposition is only accepted by people with particular religious commitments, then it cannot be said to be an objective fact.
Claims of miracles are best approached in a Bayesian sense: The Bayesian prior for a given miracle claim might be extremely low, but we are not justified in claiming that miracles are "impossible" or "never the best explanation", as we cannot demonstrate absolute statements. Rather, we should gather as much information as possible, and our degree of belief in a miracle should be dependent upon how much the evidence supports such a claim.
It just so happens that the historical evidence very strongly supports the resurrection of Jesus, although it does not prove this beyond a possible doubt.
The differences between Mark and John are enormous. It's not just a matter of "narrative elasticity" as Licona claims. He's trying to downplay the massive differences to make it seem that Mark and John are basically saying the same thing. They aren't though.
In the real physical world where I live people doesn't die and wake up after 3 days. Nuff said
It's common for bereaved to have after death visions. If Jesus did rise from the dead it is still reasonable to assume that including those that actually witnessed the risen Jesus there would also be those that would have normal visions.
Proving the resurrection does not disprove visions.
When my dad died, for years I would have dreams so realistic feeling (although the weird stuff was not actually realistically real), that I thought it was real until I woke up.
I am now having occasional short dreams just before awaking that continue after I wake up, or at least I think I'm awake. Fortunately, the dreams are very short, because I hate dreaming I'm about to have a head on crash, but the dream continues for a second or two after I am seemingly awake and it seems like the crash is actually happening.
If I didn't know better, I could see how I once might have believed that I was having visions in my dreams or as I awoke, such as on the road to New York City.
32:34
Do I hear Mike Licona’s voice starting to crack?
Yep all these so called professors, MERE MORTALS know so much more than Almighty God and his plans LOL
Mike make more sense to him.
Bart mentioned Forged in his intro & talked about how the NT contains forged works. Seems to cast doubt on everything, doesn't it? Clearly shows early Christians had motive to lie in order to market their religion.
Christians think that all other religions were started by liars, except for their own...
If your a homicide detective,the first thing you will notice about the Resurrection accounts is there different,that's actually a good sign to start with,if you ever seen interviews with people who were told about an auto accident,you usually get difference accounts all the time,I would be more sceptical of accounts that line up exactly the same,it's probably not true.
If you are a homicide detective and your best evidence (according to Licona) is a guy (Paul) saying: "let me tell you what I received and it is that Christ was raised, according to the scriptures" you have some hearsay, and you would ask, how long ago did this happen according to whatever you received (and what exactly do you mean by received? do you mean was told? or you received a letter, what?), and why do you mention "the scriptures" - is this some weird religious belief????
Licona's entire argument is based on a few, inconsistent, unconfirmed stories in which people have reportedly claimed to have seen Jesus after he allegedly died.
We really have different concepts of "bedrock". At least this demonstrates why the discussion about standards for "evidence" is so important.
When historians claim "bedrock", it means that there are several independent accounts. In other words, even it's 3 or 4 people, who have nothing to do with each other, then the account is almost certain to have occurred. It's a long standing, historical concept, based on probability.
Even though there was 1 person who claimed to have seen Anne Frank in Auschwitz, and 1 person who was still alive to claim that she was arrested and taken by the Germans (her father), and a diary that she left that told us nothing about how she was taken, or how she was killed, historically we have an air tight version of her death.
When you have several different sources that explain the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or at least that He was seen after his death, and the sources have nothing to do with each other... it is "bedrock". The chances of the pieces falling in place for any bedrock historical even are like 1 in trillions.
Sorry.. you have no idea what you're talking about.
Matt M Hahahah are you saying the gospels are several independent sources? Read a book man.
Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and Polycarp all were students of the apostles and confirmed the martyrdom of the apostles as well as the resurrection.
@@DavidVonR They confirmed no martyrdom, stop spreading this falsehood.
Yeah I'm starting to think, in terms of scholarship... Jesus really did rise from the dead... imo Bart's issue is more philosophical than biblical...
Part-Time Vegan so of the many available options like people lying or being mistaken the one you think is *most likely* is that a human being came back from death?
@@ianyboo Those "available options" don't fit the historical record. That's the problem. The resurrection hypothesis is the one explanation that most simply accounts for all of the evidence.
Bart Ehrman says that other scholars say this and say that? But he rarely said the names of the scholars he is referencing to? Nor does he go into their back rounds in knowlege and education. And also I was watching a debate between him and David wallace. And in that debate David wallace quoted a quote from a book that Bart wrote. And the quote in that book was Bart quoting another person. And David demonstrated that that person said the opposite of what Bart said that the person said. Plus David wallace is leading a team of people that have been locating thousands of full and partial historical papri of the new testament. So therefore he and his team are obviously way more knowlagble concerning those historical documents concerning the new testament than Bart is! So therefore I'm way more trusting of David wallace than I am of Bart Ehrman pertaining to all of the issues pertaining to the knowlege of the new testament. So I highly encourage you to check out some of the lectures and debates that include David wallace! Thanks! God bless you!
Lords Follower: Who is "...David wallace is leading a team of people that have been locating thousands of full and partial historical papri of the new testament..."?
Do you mean DANIEL B. WALLLACE? The same WALLACE that made this apology to Dr Ehrman on WALLACE'S website ("The first thing to mention is that yes, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 5345, published in The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 83 (2018), is the same manuscript that I spoke about in the debate and blogged about afterward. In that volume the editors date it to the second or third century...Apology
In my debate with Bart, I mentioned that I had it on good authority that this was definitely a first-century fragment of Mark. A representative for who I understood was the owner of FCM urged me to make the announcement at the debate, which they realized would make this go viral. However, the information I received and was assured to have been vetted was incorrect. It was my fault for being naïve enough to trust that the data I got was unquestionable, as it was presented to me. So, I must first apologize to Bart Ehrman, and to everyone else, for giving misleading information about this discovery. While I am sorry for publicly announcing inaccurate facts, at no time in the public statements (either in the debate or on my blogsite) did I knowingly do this. But I should have been more careful about trusting any sources without my personal verification, a lesson I have since learned....")
Lords Follower: Consider making sure you have correct and complete information re: your comment before posting errors.
@@jujojamt cant outsmart the Bart
It always baffles me. "I weighed the possible explanations for some nonsense words written down on an ancient scroll and decided the most likely explanation is that a dude came back to life by the power of a god." REALLY? It's like these people have never heard of occam's razor.
Research the man behind Ockham's razor
You do realize that Occam's Razor, since the 14th century when it was introduced, is largely discredited since many discoveries from the 20th century until now, right?
Occam's Razor appeals to simpler or simplest explanations. That is why, before the discovery of cells, and the discovery of the atom etc etc, it was assumed that simpler components must make up more complex components. It turns out that "the simplest" explanation is usually just as complex or more complex than the whole.
Anyhow... I don't think you understand the concept. I could use the same idiotic analogies pertaining to many atheists. "I weighed the possible explanations for how all of the matter of the universe came into existence l and decided the most likely explanation is that it came from absolutely nothing."
Anyhow, your comment is idiotic. The question would be "If God exists, then the resurrection of the dead is possible. Based on the historical facts, what is the best explanation for the narrative pertaining to Jesus's resurrection?"
You may as well at least try to understand the subject in a logical sense...
Really? So you think the simplest explanation is that multiple people concocted a conspiracy to promote a false religion when there is no evidence they had anything to gain by doing so? And then were willing to suffer persecution and martyrdom for it?
You should google who was Occam
You mean like how people died for many religions all over the world?
Mike R. Licona argument is a shallow and very flaw attempt to make the NT look like a reliable historical document and he refuses to see he have no leg to stand on. You could use Homer to argue for the existence of siren with his poor reasoning.
Spooky revenant stories for Halloween.
I'm reminded of something Christopher Hitchens said. In the New Testament Jesus heals a blind man. Hitchens asks, why not just end all blindness? If you had unlimited power wouldn't you feed all the starving in the world instead of just the ones who gather around you? How much suffering has happened throughout human history while Jesus has been enjoying heaven.
The biblical stories exist to entertain and give people comfort and hope.
They're great stories and it seems like we need stories; maybe because cold hard Reality is often unpleasant.
Ray Cyst thats like saying why didnt god give human beings wings why didnt he give us better protection for our brains rather than just a skull why did he only create us to live to only 70 years old why does it take 20 years for the human body to be fully developed why did he have to send his son as a sactifice to humanity? Because things have to unfold does he just sit there snapping his fingers to make everything happen? Bang a universe snap, bang human suffering all gone snap or do events have to unfold? you could go on forever but it is what it is jesus healing a blind man is it not good?
The comforting lie is a real phenomenon. Almost every Christian I've met (including my entire family - I'm the only atheist) console themselves during their grief over losing a loved one that they'll see them again some day in heaven. They still cry buckets at the funerals tho, so you have to wonder just how much they believe it.
I was having a discussion with a woman on the bus a few years ago about religion and she said her main reason for believing in Christianity was that it gave her hope that she'd see her late husband again some day. There's no real response to that unless you want to be a tactless jerk. I don't remember exactly what I said, but it was along the lines of, "I'm glad you have that hope. I personally don't have the same hope regarding my deceased loved ones." And we just changed the subject for the rest of the ride.
If "things have to unfold" then the question becomes why Jesus heals anyone at all?
Tamlinearthly he’s trying to impress the ladies
sam carter you believe in a god that watch while a grown men rape little girls everyday...and yet u believe god is loving and loves kids... your god is an ass. if she/he or it exist
Thank you Bart for all you do ☺️. You're awesome. In reading the comments, it's nice to see there are rational people out there who realize the whole resurrection story is all a fabrication to convert people to their faith
I feel like this isn't Ehrman's best debate. The good part is where they agree upon the existence of historical facts independently from belief and bias. In the last part however, Ehrman seems to be fishing for something when talking about miracles. "You move from history to faith." No he's not! Licona says he can leave 'miracle' out of the equation, and rightfully hypothesises resurrection as an inference to the best explanation for the (historically factual) testimony of some people claiming to have seen Jesus alive after his death. That's not faith, that's a legitimate, historical hypothesis. What would not be legitimate is to make 'miracle' an explanation for resurrection. But then again, that's not what Licona claims.
TL;DR: Ehrman seems to be fishing for Licona to make the non-scholarly claim that 'miracle' is an argument for resurrection, when in fact Licona can do without and only claims that resurrection might be a good explanation for the _fact_ that people claim to have seen Jesus after his death.
blastscatter
What contemporary extra biblical evidence is there of people claiming to see Jesus? This is a theological account and SEEMINGLY not a historical one.
The four gospel records predicted in other books:
Ezekiel 1:10 KJV
>As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.
Revelation 4:7 KJV
>And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.
How the gospels records portray Jesus as:
Matthew: Jesus as king (lion)
Mark: Jesus as servant (ox/calf)
Luke: Jesus as man (man)
John Jesus as God (eagle)
There are four 'branches' of Christ that represent the four gospel records:
Matthew's gospel: "I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper" (Zechariah 9:9; Jeremiah 23:5 KJV)
Mark's gospel: "behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH" (Zechariah 3:8 KJV)
Luke's gospel: "Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH" (Zechariah 6:12 KJV)
John's gospel: "the branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious" (Isaiah 4:2, 40:9 KJV)
The four gospel record portrayls of Jesus Christ in Philippians 2:5-11 KJV:
v.7 Mark (servant): "but made himself of no reputation [no genealogy in Mark], and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"
v.8 Luke (man): "and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
v.10 Matthew (king): "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;"
v.11 John (God): "and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
My suggestion is that each of you find your relationship with the risen Lord. The forgiver of sins.
I won't follow the suggestion of someone who is subscribed to that Living Waters abomination