Bart Ehrman Responds to William Lane Craig on the Resurrection
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лип 2023
- See Bart Ehrman's Biblical Courses: www.bartehrman.com/alex
This clip is taken from Within Reason #35 with Bart Ehrman: • Did Jesus Even Claim t...
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
open.spotify.com/show/16wUbvD...
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
I was excited to see that William Lane Craig has responded to Bart Ehrman's comments in this podcast in an hour-long video you can watch here: ua-cam.com/users/liverv7mzTN0xpY?feature=share
This clip is taken from Within Reason #35 with Bart Ehrman, available in full here: ua-cam.com/video/2STiabRV8TE/v-deo.html
So this is what WLC was responding to on Capturing Christianity?
Love the rebuttal, thanks for the link!
It's facinating to know more about the historicity of jesus. I heard many arguments though, stating that not even his existance can be proven if you look for evidence contemporary to his supposed existance. It would be very cool if there was somebody reputable enough for this podcast, that could talk about these arguments.
Cosmic Skeptic, Alex, I know being immersed in the 'believing' schooling you have seems to have really made you more , um, hopeful? But as for this bit, look at all the Michael Jackson, Elvis , Tupac, sightings. Also, I don't even think much of the bible is real. Nor especially 'good'. The Jesus in it seems too much like most other preachers. Not exceptional. More Paul's religion, honestly. 👍💖💙🥰✌
@@laurajarrell6187 LOL 😆 : speaking from ignorance isn't a logical response.
Ehrman's psychotic laughing is his best Argument to WLC.
But people like you with 0 theological education can be persuaded by his incoherent statements on the New Testament.
Trying to equate Elvis sighing to Jesus Resurrection and resulting Religion of over 2.0 billion people is your psychotic thinking.
Elvis Presley died and many, many people claim to have seen him since
When Napoleon died on St Helen island, many people in France did not believed it.
We even have accounts of people who saw him after his death.
Exactly, and the claim would not be any more plausible even if some of the people claiming it were his bandmates. History can not verify the plausibility of the supernatural. It can only deal with possible natural explanations.
And he didn't even need an empty tomb.
@@basolfjeld The present can't verify the plausibility of the supernatural either.
@@basolfjeldwild that his tomb is empty…
Such a great discussion. Alex you do a brilliant job of taking the positive case.
Not a great discussion. A wise man (Bart) wasting time on a not-too-clever guy.
@@fisterklister Alex isn't being an apologist here. He's just wearing a apologetic hat asking the general questions.
@@fisterklister Damn, you're not-too-clever yourself guy lmao
@@fisterklister Where do you find Alex being "not too clever"?
One of the best Devil's Advocate you could have asked for. No strawmaning the position and letting the arguments speak for themselves. Brilliant
Idk about that, this was a struggle.
@@princegobi5992 Bart says : 6:16 The Romans left Him, (Jesus) on the cross.
Also Bart: 10:06 Pilate then handed (Jesus) to the Jews.
It doesn't matter..
The Apostles would never gave up their lives for a lier, but they gave up their lives Because Jesus resurrected.
Faith is not logic or knowledge..
It's a gift from God.
@@lpwork6809
Your ability to time stamp out of context quotes is beyond comprehension. When he was talking about crucified victims being left on the cross he was referencing actual historical evidence. When he said Pilate handed him to the Jews he was quoting the bible (that big book he doesn't believe is accurate). He wasn't contradicting himself because he wasn't quoting the bible as evidence for what happened, he was just saying what it says happened. Did you even listen to the conversation?
On a side note, martyrdom isn't evidence for the resurrection. Its only evidence that a few people (the evidence for Peter, Paul, James and John is decent, evidence for the rest isn't) thought they saw it and were willing to die.
@@aaronfunnell5220
Martyrdom itself isnt evidence indeed. But thats not the point. Its the many eye witnesses who saw him after his death and then stick with that even when put to death themself.
@@Esico6
I hope you aren't referring to the 500 number which has not be collaborated anywhere. The only reference you have for that number is one bible book. Not one of the 500 wrote about it.
Yes!❤
So glad to see him hitting back at Dr. William L Craig
When I re-read the gospels I was surprised with how simple Mark's account was. It's so brief and I didn't get any idea from it that Pilate was somehow enthralled by Jesus like he was in John
If you compare Mark's 'Jesus' to John's 'Jesus', they are clearly two different people / characters.
Myths tend to get bigger over time
Reading Mark first really does change a lot
I think thats nothing strange,
Because assuming with earlier account, most people still remember the event, so doesn't need to write very detail of it
Later on when your audience people outside of the area, you would write more detail
@@DewaHuang
Well, the gospel of Mark was written 35-45 years after Jesus died…
I love Alex o Connor. He challenges the atheists the way atheists expect Christian’s to be questioned. Good stuff
The difference is that atheists don't generally make a claim, they just don't accept the one that is made because it lacks credible evidence. In that sense, there's really nothing to "challenge". If Christianity were the prosecution in a criminal case, all it would take is a motion to dismiss to have the case thrown out of court.
It seems asymmetric because believers have these unfalsifiable claims, where atheists tend not to. Everything should be challenged though.
The difference is Atheists welcome the challenge to their beliefs the christian is offended by them.
Except this conversation was nothing to do with faith and everything to do with history, the record and what can be reasonably assumed from what we know
The fact that you framed it that way reflects how some christians seem desperate to find any semblance of justification of their beliefs in the least adequate places.
You don't need any of this to justify your faith and Alex far from does anything here to justify it, neither does Bart attempt to make you question it
He was challenged, but he was off big time he was going around but this, but that was nothing else he was looking for excuses for especially Jesus .He does not understand what evidence is at all ...
Nice to see you getting bonda fide thinkers on the subject. Speaks to your success as a thoughtful mind in the space. Hitch was my voice reason - without a doubt you will be one for this generation
This discussion is incredible!😂 great work 👏🏽
I’m from Nigeria, and last night, my Uncle was talking about dead bodies who get possessed by spirits and then move to another town to start a new family until someone living in that town recognizes them, and then they disappear to another city to repeat the cycle. As an atheist I find this laughable, but the man and many others believe this nonsense.
So I think when Alex talks about a man walking in, touching and interacting with people after death, it’s not really something new to my hearing.. we hear this nonsense all the time.
Here in South Africa too......
@@JacquesMare my brother 🤲🏽
I just saw some crazy thing on the news about people murdering bald guys in Africa to- and I hope this isn't true and I swear I'm not making it up- get the gold inside their heads?
@@shassett79 dude the amount if insanity people believe in here, is off the charts.
We had to transfer a security guard two weeks ago because he insisted that the female staff had bewitched him and he just had to get the fuck away from them.
@@JacquesMare lol
Thanks, Alex.
Enjoyed Alex probing questions.
Fantastic content. Wonderful with insightful views and topics. 😮👍😄
you have different writers #~writing on the same theme they would have to agree on the the same story and know each others work and to achieve that would have to be a miracle in itself
Alex, watched you play the most polite devil's advocate in this whole series. 👍
Technically he's being Jesus' advocate in this particular video at least lol
@@SonicluNerdGamerLOL Dad joke FTW!!!
@@pererau "Ok, now just roll the stone back!"
- Jesus, probably, returning to the tomb after hearing that joke
That's because Alex isn't your typical atheist. He undoubtedly sides with some of the arguments he represented. There's a reason he's often referred to as a theist that doesn't know it yet. 😅
It's not necessarily true, of course, but from a theist perspective he's got the arguments and he's definitely got the intelligence so he's just lacking the all important experience that pushes him over.
@@CynHicks Considering his entire body of work, that conclusion seems to be a far cry. Utilizing arguments that are compelling to some theists in order to provoke conversation with a Scholar isn’t enough to extrapolate his “secret theism”. That’s purely your inference.
It’s far more likely that Alex is playing devils advocate and conceding/accepting some theistic claims that haven’t met their burden of proof
I love Bart Ehrman's ability to challenge ideas that are considered true by association. Even Alex seem to fall into the trap of agreeing that Jesus was crucified then accepting narrative of things like the burial in a tomb. It's such an important, but difficult, way to think to have to examine each part of a statement as its own factual claim and not one combined fact.
To be fair, I think Alex was playing more of a devil's advocate here, almost as a stand-in for Craig.
@@Brickerbrack Exactly. And a beautiful job playing devils advocate.
Erhman is talking out of his arse and has nothing more to offer other than mere skepticism. If you think about it logically if Jesus' body was left on the cross, there would be no hue and cry about resurrection. It logically follows from our understanding of the culture and practices (of which have literary and archaelogical proof) that Jesus body was kept in a tomb. Show me a good consensus that Jesus was not buried. Most scholars admit that. Even Erhman admitted that few years back till he understood exactly where that road leads
We have the problem to easier accept fan fiction the more often it is repeated as each time we have another copy in our brain.
I think that Alex was merely playing the role of the Devil's Avocado!
Great interview 👍 👏
This is such a good channel!
There is no combination more exquisite than Ehrman as interviewed and O'Connor as interviewer ❤
It's incredible that we are still talking about ancient myths today as though they might be real.
People thought they saw Elvis after he died too. Can we just grow up as a species? Please.
Lol that's because you fail to convince the believers otherwise. Please stfu
As well as 2Pac and Santa Claus and myriad other deceased celebrities and fanciful characters. It’s absolutely embarrassing that we cannot come together to see the lethal and obvious climate change in front of our own eyes and even reject its existence outright. Meanwhile, we still play make believe as adults and murmur to invisible beings like we are their prized pets.
Evolution is a slow process, and there is no selection pressure for us to do so. I don't hold much hope for that.
I agree. But don't bet on it!
Please stop. Did Elvis split human history? Did people spend 40 days with Elvis after he had died?
To the point that Romans ordinarily left crucified victims on the cross to slowly decompose, William Lane Craig has already provided a citation to an ancient source confirming that a crucified victim WAS given a burial. Why do you believe their normal practice was a fixed law? (Question for you: isn't recorded history literally filled with unusual, sometimes extraordinary events? Of course.)
The absurdity of Ehrman's claim is twofold. First, the Biblical records from those who were there. Save your objections. Why should I believe Ehrman in the 21st century instead of those in the 1st century? And remember this was several accounts, not just one.
But more to the point: why do YOU write this year as 2024? As does every other person on earth? Who does "2024" point to? Jesus Christ. He ALONE split human history. Not you, not anyone else. Is it rational to believe that Jesus would be the singular person to split human history if his body had rotted for days in view of all witnesses? How much faith does THAT take?
And never forget, it was the resurrection alone that gave his BIRTH such history splitting significance. The resurrection of Christ split human history, providing the most extraordinary evidence that Jesus was indeed, God as he said he was. Jesus, whose moral teachings formed the foundation of Western civilization by FIRST TRANSFORMING the Roman empire. (See Tom Holland's "Dominion" on this.)
And never forget that Jesus' disciples turned the world upside down preaching everywhere that Christ was risen. Several were killed for this testimony and all suffered greatly for it without A SINGLE ONE recanting their testimony when a recantation would have saved their life. And Ehrman wants us to believe that they did all of this after watching Jesus slowly rot on a cross?
And he wants us to believe that the Romans made Christianity the official religion of Rome 300 years later when the founder slowly rotted on a cross?
His argument is irrational.
Love you Alex!
Dr Richard Miller's work Resurrection & Reception In Early Christianity is excellent. You two would have a fantastic conversation ❤
Absolutely.
Richard carrier as well
you have different writers #~writing on the same theme they would have to agree on the the same story and know each others work and to achieve that would have to be a miracle in itself
Glad to see how Alex's not in the echo-chamber.
Also interesting to see how two skeptics go on a productive interview without being too skeptical about everything.
Alex is not in the echo chamber? What does that mean? Alex knows the answer to every question he asked. He's just playing devil's advocate. Or in this case, Christ's advocate.
@@TenTonNuke not even Christ's, more like Christian fanatics. They've long been out of touch with Christ
@@TenTonNuke You said Christ’s advocate 😂
Which echo-chamber?
I always enjoy hearing from Bart.
"We have several historical figures for which those four facts are true. Romulus--I don't know if he was a historical figure . . . "
My favorite part where Ehrman's first example doesn't meet the four facts.
Wow. The best interview ever
This was excellent Alex, a really intelligent interview---you are fair and judicious among other things---and whether you intended to or not you put the skids under Bart Ehrman. Keep up the great work.
I remember reading books in the library about the cases of vampires in Eastern Europe, and testimonies from people who had recently lost their relatives saying that they appeared to them after death and said affectionate things to them (people they knew all their lives) and the sadness of losing them added to anemia or other diseases seemed to be an explanation of why this type of hallucinations. Dead mothers, brothers, husbands appeared after they were dead, then they got sick. When they commented on that, it was believed that the hallucinations were vampires and they got sick because the vampires were making them sick. Very superstitious peoples performed exorcisms, decapitated corpses, buried them upside down, among others to avoid cases of vampirism.
I remember reading the translation of a letter from the Catholic Church complaining that superstitious ignoramuses decapitated and desecrated corpses for this type of cases.
Exactly. I myself have had experiences where I could have sworn I’ve seen people who have died, for instance my grandfather. Now I am a totally secular atheist person, so I just shake my head, and go “wow, that’s weird, my mind is playing tricks on me.” But superstitious people living in societies that believe in supernatural happenings will take these kinds of things as real. And then further, they will expand in the telling, and people will believe those expanded versions. After 30 years, there could be any kind of stuff going around.
@@willmosse3684 Wouldn't someone who believes in the supernatural just take all of your accounts as further proof? neither you or the commenter you're responding to actually argued against the "visions" as genuine, you merely give more examples of people having these experiences.
@@Mr.Goodkat Yes, superstitious people would take the claims as genuine. But they don’t meet the standards of evidence the have been developed since the rationalist enlightenment and the scientific revolution. So it’s a medieval or ancient way of thinking.
The reason for pointing out that people believe all sorts of claims about people rising from the dead, is that Alex was positing that these claims about Jesus amount to evidence he really rose from the dead, because surely all these claims wouldn’t be made about something that didn’t happen. Well, if that’s your standard of evidence, you need to believe all these vampire claims too.
What seems interesting to me is how the apostolic and Roman Catholic Church is skeptical of these testimonies and even centuries ago has an explanation of anemia and hallucinations due to the sadness of losing a loved one as the most likely explanation for the appearance of a nearby dead person. Even criticizing village priests who believed these things and performed exorcisms on corpses or decapitated them so that they would not rise again.
how easy it is to look at the straw in the other's eye...
@@RojirigoD Absolutely
Alex did a great job of playing the believer in this conversation.
I commend the tough questioning you applied, Alex, when I know you stand with Bart. Well done. We learned a lot more for the quality of your questions.
Even though I’m a believer, I absolutely appreciate this engaging discussion. Any believer or non-believer should engage this video or others like it. One should always allow themselves to be challenged.
At the battle of Marathon, Athenian soldiers swore they saw, fighting beside them, the larger-than-life figures of Castor and Pollux, two heroes who had died centuries earlier (they had been with Jason on the Argo in its quest for the Golden Fleece). There--eye witness accounts of a resurrection!
But did they die
They were supposed to have died....Graves in his novel Hercules My Shipmate, does an epilogue that outlines how they died.@@Logosfollower
These eye witness accounts have no other supporting evidence. Fighting in battle probably plays havoc with the mind.
@@LogosfollowerPeople rarely are hundreds of years old so yes.
Maybe the Greek soldiers weren't mistaken after all? Maybe they were right?
Man, the Craigbots are out in force on this one! There's blood in the holy water!
Just a reminder:
- Craig has no epistemic standards for deciding whether any particular religion is true
- He admits becoming Christian simply because he thought it sounded neat
- He's spent several decades trying to put an academic veneer on an arbitrary choice he made in his teens
- All of his reasoning is emotionally motivated and based on presupposition
- He's kind of a dick about it
All reasonable points, especially the last one.
what's your "epistemic standard" for deciding which religion is true or not?
you missed one point - shassettbot has a boner every time he sees Bart Ehrman.
@@haleylewis9587 >You could not be more wrong on all 4 points.
--
Four points? Does that mean you agree with one of them? Is it the one about him being a dick?
@@japexican007 >what's your "epistemic standard" for deciding which religion is true or not?
--
Why are you scare-quoting epistemic standards?
thanks for sharing
Thanks Alex! Awesome to see you chat with 2 very popular Christian scholars that differ widely on Jesus of Nazareth!
The bottom line is that people simply don't want to believe. I mean of course there's no evidence (apart from Biblical accounts) that Jesus rose from the dead and was seen by certain people. So? But what if it's actually true. No one can prove it's not. Bottom line, if there's even a slight likelihood that it's true, far 'safer' to believe it ... just in case cause there ain't no hope for anyone if it's not.
Wonderful! If only political argument could be conducted so politely, we would be better people
The difference is, one is honest, logical, analytical truth seeking. The other is smoke and mirrors, half truths, bluster and outright lies to win people over. A bit like apologetics really.
This channel should be seen by millions of people ❤!!
Brother I see you bloody everywhere. 😅😅
Bro comments this on every channel💀
Fake account with a creepy name and picture
@@strumspicks2456I think the creepy picture is the point. I think he’s trying to expose the fact that the prophet likely married a 6 year old girl.
@@strumspicks2456by fake do you mean he’s impersonating someone?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🕊️ Bart Ehrman discusses his past conversation with William Lane Craig about the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus.
01:08 📜 Ehrman mentions four generally agreed-upon facts about Jesus: his existence, teachings, crucifixion, and post-death sightings.
03:41 💬 Ehrman questions the claim of an empty tomb, highlighting issues with its historical evidence and reliability.
08:09 🤔 Ehrman doubts the portrayal of Pontius Pilate as disturbed by Jesus' crucifixion, viewing it as an attempt to emphasize Jewish culpability.
11:48 🧐 Ehrman questions the reliability of Paul's claim of 500 people seeing Jesus, citing a lack of corroboration in other sources.
16:36 🙏 Ehrman highlights the difference between individual writers' claims about groups seeing Jesus and actual groups of people attesting to the sightings, suggesting stronger evidence is needed.
First, love you Alex!
Yes? Go on.
@@brotherben4357 wtf is wrong w you xd
Bart Ehrman is just awesome
Hi, Christian here. 👋 You just gained a subscriber. Thank you for asking truth seeking questions. The Truth is all that matters brothers.
Well done, your path out of Christianity has begun. Look forward to a kinder, less bigoted world. ❤
You should follow your own advice
@@gehrig7593 l have
Welcome to the rational side
Assuming that Christianity does not uphold kindness and is bigoted shows how uneducated you are about anything related to it, what a dumb comment@@possumface2425
Alex is such an intellectualy honest man 🙌
As far as Paul and claims of 500 seeing Jesus; It is clear to me that Paul is writing to a community which has a significant part who do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus - (and these are amongst the earliest Christians) - and Paul is trying to convince them that it is real. In that context, he claims that he has seen Jesus (although not the actual living person), and that there are 500 others who have seen him. Surely that is just hyperbolic argument, not to be taken as literal history. It would be like Trump's claims of the size of his inauguration crowds.
🤣🤣👍🏼
I saw Bigfoot awhile back! Others did too!
I think more accurately you'd have to say "it was written that groups of people claimed to have seen him" - not even that it was a real claim.
Isn't that all history though? How can you prove 500 people actually saw Jesus even if you were a detective in the 1st century? There is no way to verify that only to take 500 witness statements. By iself, as Alex rightfully points out, the evidence is insufficient but when combined with everything else it makes the case.
Sometimes Ehrman is a little loose with the word "fact". I am not used to academics being that way.
Exactly…
The data isn’t "Jesus appeared to groups of people.“
The data is "35-45 years after Jesus died an author who doesn’t identify himself and doesn’t identify his sources claims that Jesus appeared to groups of people.“
@@ramigilneas9274 yes, that. 😆
@@ramigilneas9274 Paul's account in 1.Corr 15 is a bit more than that though.
Really interesting to see Alex evolve over the years and with his higher education into the matters seem more willing to accept Christian doctrine on face value. Not sure what to make of it but it feels like he’s starting to question his atheism.
But regardless, one of my favorite UA-camrs. Keep being you Alex we appreciate the great content !
I don't see that but rather he's open to understanding and being generous to the rationale others have for believing.
Thank you Bart.
I can tell that Dr Ehrman is a great professor/teacher. He keep asking why? Why? He explains so well!!!
First time I've heard someone at his level say the bible is the claim, not the evidence. Love it.
Then I guess you've not watched many videos like this.
Anyone who makes claims of supernatural events is making a claim of something extraordinary. It is on them to provide evidence to back up their claim.
You don’t listen to many then …. What “ high “ level is this guy ?. He left Christianity.. 🤔🤷♂️🤷♂️
That's a dubious distinction. We accept things all the time based on testimony.
@@johnbinford6706
Do you accept Bigfoots existence based on living witness testimonies?
perhaps you haven't had enough reading then. otherwise you would've known that it indeed is evidence - but only for those accepting (the claim, the call, whatever). of course it is not by any means a pure scientific evidence as it was not written by a scolar or a group of such people, but rather is a written compilation of earlier oral memories of number of witnesses and their followers.
Alex is such a sharp listener. He isn't just waiting to say his next talking point.
You are very versatile dude.
Thank you about how crucifixion actually worked. No one was ever taken down from a cross. Once the bones were picked clean, they were put in a common grave.
That statement appears to be incorrect. There is evidence - including physical evidence - that (at least in Judea) the Romans allowed the Jews to bury crucified people.
I'd love to see Alex re-start this exact conversation with Dr. Richard Carrier.
Agree, he would be all over this
I doubt you'll ever get it. I've definitely become certain Ehrman will never agree to debate Carrier. He does his absolute best to ignore his existence.
That would be awesome
Carrier is a clown
Maybe it's because I'm used to hearing more of the historical arguments and counterarguments for Christianity, but I found it weird that Alex asked some of the questions he did with seeming sincerity.
I guess it makes sense, he focuses far more on the philosophical and theological side of the discussion.
Alex is great civilized and respectful.
@@Snookerball13 Yes, I see what you may have in mind.
It's interesting to me how upsetting I found it for you to push back on Bart's points. You were a great interviewer and you really elucidated the logic and merits of his points by asking such probing questions; I think I might need to step outside of my own echo chamber more lol.
Very well done.
whats wrong with pushing back unless you're insecure about the subject?
@@jaromsmiss No, for sure. That's what I was trying to say. I'm not usually insecure about these conversations, but I found myself feeling defensive and not really knowing why. And so I appreciate Alex for being willing to do that and not just quietly nod. It challenged me.
A lot of that questioning really sounded like Alex was doing a questioning exercise entirely unrelated to what a historian's job is, surprisingly out of touch quite frankly.
More a push to the side than a pushback imho
@@strumspicks2456yea it’s like he doesn’t understand what historical evidence is
Makes me wonder why he is very soft with religious apologists lately.
The fact is, these are in no way well established facts.
And somehow we have grown adults, educated people, arguing about the 'undeniably' history, of an _obvious_ fiction, "Mark".
The fact that at least two more writers, "Matthew" and "Luke", came along later and added even more fantastical elements, to the story, which actually contradict each other and create an origin story that can not be reconciled with the things we do know about historical goings on at the time, push this entire concept of arguing about some 'well established' "facts" into purely farcical territory.
I find these talks fascinating to listen too. My only beef is that they intellectualize this story. Which is fine, but with me I just find it easier to thing they made the whole thing up as the went along.
Love this intellectually forensic debate!
Capturing Christianity responded to "defend their faith" and shadowban all atheist to protect their flock of sheeps.
Paulogia responded to it.
I just checked William Craigs response to this… SMH… they are saying over on this Christian channel that Alex had Bart Erhman against the wall. Lol what?! They completely dismissed all of Barts great, logical responses. It’s so funny how different opinions are from both sides.
It was a total shit show, he claimed Bart is not a historian because he trained in textual criticism to no push back from the clueless interviewer
Their aggressiveness is necessary to protect their charade.
It's funny that you think both sides are honest. Craig is a bullshit artist.
Wlc is anything but aggressive lol none of my atheist heroes can stand with WLC. Maybe Hitchens could but even he would joke a lot which would undesirable draw attention away from the main point .
@@Sal3600 Bullshit. WLC is a liar who uses the debate platform to pretend he is a scholar. I could mop the floors with his bullshit in any forum.
Glad you went with the small microphones.
Craig acts like a backstabber when he is talking about Ehrman, when Ehrman isn't around.
Stick to the arguments please😅
State your opinion as you choose, please 😅
@@GRP--gw1yl As I did.
This annoys the heck out of when it is pointed out how bad somebodies claims are and they respond that somehow having a shitload of bad evidence would make good evidence.
I had the same conversation with a moon landing denier. At some point he just reverted to basically saying that the amount of assumptions would somehow qualify as evidence itself.
It was the exact same thing with “election fraud” in the US 2020 election. TONS of claims of fraud and ballot tampering, etc, but no actual evidence. “There’s so many claims, therefore the election was stolen”
A moon landing denier you say?...
ua-cam.com/video/sj6a0Wrrh1g/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/KpuKu3F0BvY/v-deo.html
Based on what Bart said there is no way of proving that the Romans didn't allow many crucified to be buried afterwards. I'm sure there would not be documentation for every crucifixion and its outcome from that time.
The purpose of crucifixion was to let the body hang there, to be seen by the public. It's for people they didn't intend to bury. There's no reason to think they were changing their minds all the time and letting traitors be buried. They intended for the body to be rotted then thrown in a trench grave.
You can't prove a negative. Of course, the Romans could have done that in some undocumented instances--anything's possible after all--but I believe what Bart said is that there is not a single instance of documented historical evidence to corroborate the Christian claim that they ever did.
I like Alex's steelmanning style here
"Joseph Campbell says that the greatest tragedy in life is not so much failure but rather climbing the ladder of success and finding out that it is up against the wrong wall! Bob Dylan was reflecting ruefully on the same phenomenon when he said, "You find out when you reach the top / you’re on the bottom." We can spend our entire lives pursuing goals that are worthless, or even goals that are objectively good but not ours-or better, not Christ’s for us."
Bishop Robert Barron
A more recent account is the large crowd at Fatima seeing the Sun move around the sky. This is in the midst of WWI, many observers elsewhere looking in the sky looking for enemy aircraft. None of them saw the sun dance across the sky. In this case the Catholic Church took the testimony from the witnesses, recording their names.
There weren't many aircraft involved in WW1.
@@geoffpoole483 Sure there were, just not as many as WW2, or during the American Revolution where Trump claimed the colonial army took over the airports from the redcoats.
I`ve never understood the importance given to the empty tomb, even if it was true. Someone could have just removed the body and claimed the guy resurrected. Many people would believe it given the degree of superstition of the time.
I suspect that, to a Christian, "someone could have just removed the body" is perfectly reasonable in the thousand other god myths, but not this one, it's how faith works i guess.
Not only that, but if someone wanted to claim the guy resurrected, who of the populace would honestly know where he had originally been buried? Christians make it seem like the entire city would know where Jesus was buried, but from the accounts it seems all followers of Jesus went into hiding, and only the disciples, a couple of women close to Jesus, and Joseph of Arimathea really knew where the tomb was.
The narrative could potentially circulate for months without any of the close followers of Jesus hearing anything about it, especially if they were going back to Galilee to continue on with their day jobs.
It is true, and the importance is that it when combined with the other accepted facts create a hard situation to explain.
I will list the facts near-unanimously accepted by all historians (and most new testament scholars with Bart being an exception who at one point AGREED with all of these). Jesus existed, Jesus died via crucifixion, Jesus was put in a tomb, Jesus's tomb was later found empty by female followers, and shortly after other followers of Jesus had become convinced they had seen him, the followers of Jesus whom claimed to have seen him held to this account even when it meant death (the deaths of the apostles are well-documented).
Now how do we explain these facts, what you are adhering to seems to be the conspiracy theory. The issue with it is that while it explains the empty tomb, how is it that people believed to have seen a risen Jesus? You seem to believe that those who claimed that simply lied, which does get past this problem the issue is what comes next. The disciples who under the conspiracy theory would KNOW they are lying, instead of recanting, would rather die.
The conspiracy theory is not really used much in modern times because it frankly fails even atheist historians don't tend to use it. Many would instead use the hallucination theory, but that runs into the issue of the empty tomb (hence why it is important), while not the only issue hallucination theory has the empty tomb literally can't be explained under hallucination theory because even if people had hallucinated the tomb to be empty the romans would simply have showed it to be occupied and put down the early Christian church which had been causing problems.
Bart again used to agree with all the historical facts, I can guess as to the reasons for his rejection but that is neither here nor there.
@@mikesandmire211 It is, if it is the best possible explanation for the evidence. In the case of Jesus's body that fails, conspiracy theory is not well-regarded by even atheist historians and I outlined why in another comment.
Agreed. In fact, the empty tomb does not even convince people in the actual story.
Brilliantly done, Alex. As a Christian, especially that last question you asked, you asked what was on my mind to ask and when you do that for someone on the "opposing side", you know you've represented them fairly. Though we don't all need to think the same way or have the same styles, it's still a nice concept for everyone to be able to engage opposing arguments like this, and I hope I can do that as well, though admittedly my biases as a Christian require a different kind of caution (as Paul writes about solid food and not causing fellow believers to stumble).
WLC usually shits on public figures who disagree with him. He’s done the same to Hitchens and Dawkins.
Is this a good or bad thing?
@@GRP--gw1ylshits on = bad-mouths them.
Craig reminds me of a certain stripe of evangelical preacher who can say awful things that nobody in his audience notices because he grins and does the "aw shucks, bless his heart" routine the whole time.
@@shassett79 I thought something very similar while reading the comments section of a new Inspiring Philosophy interview with him.
Wow. And you don't mention what Dawkins has to say to people of faith? Not even comparable. Hypocrite you.
Bart is very patient with Alex's silly questions. The gospels saying that 500 people saw Jesus is not the same as 500 people leaving physical testimony..
Was Paul saying that, the Gospel’s don’t mention it.
Fun fact - the Greek word used for "appeared" (ophthe) in 1 Cor 15 didn't necessarily indicate the physical appearance of a person. We see the same word being used in the Septuagint when God "appeared" to the Patriarchs but without seeing anything physical or describing a sensory experience. So unless you want to claim these people literally saw the physical body of God then you will have to concede the word can be used in the "feel the presence" sense and so our earliest source is vague in regards to the type of appearances.
So when an apologist pulls out the "group appearances" card, it should not be persuasive in the slightest since the earliest source in which they are mentioned (1 Cor 15) does not describe them. On the other hand, if the group appearances _were_ described in 1 Cor 15 as actually seeing a physical person walking around, then in order to doubt that, a skeptic would have to use the hallucinatory explanation - which seems implausible and ad hoc. But since the group appearances *are not described* (all you have is the vague term "appear") then it's not clear that a physical encounter with a resurrected figure on the earth was implied. So instead of shifting the burden onto the skeptic to show these were hallucinations, the proponent of the Resurrection argument actually has the burden to show these encounters were originally understood to be physical interactions with the Resurrected body of Jesus on earth before he went to heaven. Since the term is equally likely to refer to a heavenly/visionary appearance, it doesn't matter how many people were said to experience it.
None of the resurrection narratives in the gospels match Paul's appearance chronology from 1 Cor 15 and they all grow more dramatic and fantastic in chronological order as if a legend was evolving. So appealing to the gospels as evidence doesn't help either I'm afraid. Moreover, all the gospels are written in third person. They never say "I saw this happen" and describe it from a firsthand perspective. Only Paul's account is firsthand but the appearance to him was a vision that he does not distinguish from the appearances to the others. This automatically makes the nature of all the other "appearances" ambiguous and so the data is insufficient to establish a Resurrection actually occurred.
Also, the gospels are completely anonymous, which helps their credibility not one iota.
The funny thing is that we can focus on these appearances, and I'd agree with you that the nature of these appearances is not talked about at all. But you cannot deny that 1 Cor 15 also at the same time claims that Jesus rose from the dead. So whatever appearances they were, somehow they convinced the people who've seen these appearances. Apparently, back in those days, they were considered authoritative and reliable enough to be convinced of His resurrection. Now if these appearances were indeed "feel the presence" type of sensory experiences, then why on earth would that be convincing enough to those people. Moreover, why would they be convincing to others who haven't had these experiences?
@@rsr789 Could you clarify how and why the church fathers are unanimous about who wrote them? Even if they did share doubts about the authors of other Christian writings?
@@Jarige2 People back then believed visions, dreams and revelations were real. It was before the enlightenment. That's all that needs to be said. But if you need more, you can lookup sources on how Second Temple Judaism was a visionary culture. Maurice Casey's book Jesus of Nazareth has a section about this in the chapter on the Resurrection, I think around page 489. This is something that is ignored in apologetics. The cultural context and beliefs are very relevant here.
@@resurrectionnerd "People back then believed visions, dreams and revelations were real"
You're going to have to back this up with more I guess. Dreams, even? Dreams could convince people that someone rose from the dead? You're saying visions of a dead person would convince a person in that culture that this person rose from the dead?
The cultural background in first century Palestine is that the Jews did not believe in bodily resurrection before the end of times. The Jews in those times, believed that after the end of times, people would be resurrected. Not before that. And the expectation of a Messiah was quite different from Jesus as well, the legend of Jesus being Messiah was simply very unlikely to have been born out of the cultural context of the Jews in that time. It seems to me quite foolish that in such a cultural context, a mere vision could convince someone that someone was resurrected AND Messiah. Something really, really strange happened there.
If Jesus physically rose from the dead and ascended into heaven at what speed did he ascend and how far from earth is he now?
Remember, we are talking about him doing these this physically.
Oh that is a good one ! 😂😂😂
Also it is common knowledge among those who are familiar with Greek and Roman plays (literature) that the appearance and disappearance of gods in plays had been staged in such a way that the actors playing these parts would be let down with ropes or hoisted up out of sight of the audience after playing their part.
So exits Jesus after doing his thing.
The above is strong evidence that the gospels are actually plays, fiction as entertainment for the Roman and Greeks based on actual events, to mock the liberation struggles of the Jews.
>at what speed did he ascend
--
Well we know he hit escape velocity, at the very least, since there aren't any reports of him plummeting back to Earth...
Just for reference, the Escape Velocity for an object to leave earth's gravitational influence is about 11 kilometers (7 miles) per second, or over 40,000 kilometers per hour (25,000 miles per hour). Ergo, I don't know why they keep on depicting Jesus as white, as that motherfucker (pun intended), would be burnt to a crisp.
@@rsr789 I literally lol'd
@@rsr789Why do I have flashbacks to African and European swallows carrying coconuts?
I'm not sure that not having read Hume makes it impossible for the person to have a "warmed-over Humean" approach. There are those such as Chris Hitchens who refer to Hume and his approach, so one can be aware of Hume's view about miracles without having read Hume. And beyond that, if one took the same approach then it could be referred to as "Humean" even if one didn't know that someone named "Hume" even existed. That would still leave the question of what "warmed-over" means.
apparently the gospel authors also knew the kind of dreams pilate’s wife used to have…
Just think of all the people who claimed to see Elvis alive and well after he was dead and buried. Loads of claims, that went on for years and years. People in the time of the gospel writers believed that Nero was still alive and would return. This kind of thing is very common.
Had it been foretold that Elvis will come back to life before he was born? It's a different story with Jesus.
@@ramebgm1394 It was "foretold" if one wants it to be that way. The great thing about religious prophecies is that they're so vague one can reverse engineer whatever one wants into them. It remains a fact that claims are not evidence, and all we have for this are claims, and such claims are common, and you reject all of the others without even thinking about it...a clear case of culturally-imposed confirmation bias.
@@njhoepner here you did the same claiming prophecy is vague. What makes your claim more right than the desciples who had sacrificed their life for what they have seen. Wouldn't they try to avoid the most brutal death,If the evidence were not clear enough. Who is more bias here? And, have you not listened to William Lane Craig response?
@@ramebgm1394 Feel free to cite me a prophecy that isn't vague or open to multiple interpretations. Take all the time you need.
As for "the disciples who had sacrificed their lives," there's no real evidence for that. In your bible we have ONE instance in which all of the twelve were warned and flogged...after that, ten of the twelve disappear from the account and are never heard from again. Shortly thereafter, it's the Peter show until about chapter 9 of Acts, then it's the Paul show. Nothing about any of the others. The idea that they "sacrificed their life" is church tradition (legend) that emerged centuries later, without evidence or backing. So even if I took your bible as literal truth, we hear of no further deaths or suffering or anything for any of the twelve...Peter and Paul are both still alive when the account ends, and as I mentioned the rest have disappeared. So the argument is weak.
William Lane Craig argues exactly like you do - he starts with the presumption that the bible is word-for-word literal truth, THEN he adds in whatever he feels he needs from church tradition/legend ("all of the disciples died for their beliefs"), and then declares that he has proven the bible is word-for-word literal truth...a textbook example of circular reasoning.
@@njhoepner The birth of Jesus
Long before Jesus’s birth, ancient prophets foretold many events related to His role and mission. These prophecies were given so people would recognize Jesus when He came and have faith in Him as their Savior. Isaiah in the Old Testament wrote about Jesus 700 years before His birth: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). He further declared, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).
The life of Jesus
Other Old Testament prophets foretold Jesus’s life in remarkable detail. Micah knew the Savior would be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2). Hosea spoke of the time Jesus would spend in Egypt as a child (see Hosea 11:1). The book of Psalms talks about how Jesus would speak in parables and would be rejected by His own people (see Psalm 69:8; 78:2). Another of Isaiah’s beautiful prophecies spoke of Jesus’s role and sacrifice: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. ... He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4-5).
The death and resurrection of Jesus
All of God’s prophets have testified of Jesus. Old Testament prophets described events that would occur hundreds of years later. Isaiah foretold how Jesus would be mocked, spat upon, and struck (see Isaiah 50:6). The prophet Zechariah knew that Jesus would be crucified and yet would pray for His enemies (see Zechariah 12:10). Most importantly, prophets throughout the Bible taught God’s message that Jesus Christ would be resurrected (see Isaiah 25:8) and that because of Him, we will be resurrected too (see Isaiah 26:19; Job 19:26).
If one looks to Roman history, Pontius Pilate was anything but the figure portrayed in the gospels. He was ordered back to Rome for excessive harshness and cruelty.
At 11:58. This ideas of a resurrection got me thinking about Joseph Smith. When he died the Latter-day Saints had a sense of incredulity that he was dead. Smith had died as a young man with a lot of unfinished business. Succession had also not been worked out. Who was supposed to be the new prophet? Brigham Young eventually succeeded after three years. There was a common belief that Joseph Smith would be resurrected from the dead after a prolonged absence. Of course this belief could not be carried on for a long term period. It also did not continue after Young died.
WLC: but Lawrence what about the empty tomb?
Lawrence Krauss: I don't know look for Jimmy Hoffa.
😂
Excellent video thanks. I would like to know, in the case of crucifixion in Roman times, how far the relatives or followers of the executed could be from the cross.I mean if a dying person in those conditions could speak, how far away would be heard from?
I would say, based on the dissimilarities between the accounts on the resurrection of Jesus, that it's much more credible to say that the disciples made up the resurrection narrative rather than a group hallucination.
Then you are left with the absurd notion of the first disciples dying for what they knew was a LIE.
Robert Englund doesn’t want to admit his Freddy past.
😂He still has lots of point though Freddy!!😅
Here's the TLDR version for the Resurrection being a legend.
1. Paul - no evidence of a Resurrected Jesus that remained on the earth or had his formerly dead corpse touched after revivification. Uses a "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as an "appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 without distinguishing it from the others in 1 Cor 15:5-7.
2. Mark - no evidence a resurrection _narrative_ existed yet since the original ended at Mk. 16:8.
3. Matthew - appearance in Galilee which some doubt - Mt. 28:17.
4. Luke - totally different appearance in Jerusalem where Jesus makes sure to say he's "not a spirit" but composed of flesh and bone, eats fish and is witnessed ascending to heaven!
5. John - Jesus can teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story.
Now for the longer version. Let's compare the ways the Resurrected Jesus is said to have been experienced according to the documents arranged in chronological order. As you're reading, ask yourself is this data more expected under the hypothesis of reliable eyewitness testimony vs the hypothesis of an evolving legend? The scholarly consensus dates the documents as follows:
- Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't.
Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned.
- Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. There is no evidence an appearance narrative existed at this point, 40 years after the death of Jesus. The story just predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee in some sense. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one.
Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. There is no evidence an appearance _narrative_ existed at this point.
- Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women run to tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending. Along the way, Jesus suddenly appears and they grab Jesus' feet. This happens _before_ reaching any disciples which contradicts both Luke and John's depictions. Then there is an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. This is strange since Jn. 20:19 says Jesus already appeared the same night of the Resurrection. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. This shows that Christian authors _did invent_ details.
Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee.
- Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Lk. 24:5-8 alters what the angels say and _erases_ the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from Mk. 16:6-7 cf. Mt. 28:5-7. All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Luke omits any appearance to the women and implies they _didn't_ see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated.
Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18.
- John 90-110 CE - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb but only _after_ she told Peter and the "other disciple." This contradicts Matthew and Luke. Jesus then teleports through locked doors, appears to the disciples then a week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke him. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" then you will be blessed. There is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21.
John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip.
As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Moreover, in Luke and John the stories have obvious apologetic motivations for invention.
Even if you dispute the dating of the sources, you still have to reconcile the mass of differences, contradictions and explain why we should believe this is reliable eyewitness testimony when it doesn't look like that at all.
If you want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then you should start by providing other examples from multiple authors describing the same event from history that:
1. All diverge in fantastic detail like the gospels do.
and
2. Scholars still regard them to be reliable historical documents.
I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that look like the gospels do will either be legends themselves or their testimony too questionable to be considered reliable.
Agreed. For some reason we give the bible a pass. If we used the historical method to examine the bible, it falls 100% flat on its face.
Your TLDR is too long so I didn't read
@@chrispysaid Here it is short and concise. The Resurrection story is a clear developing legend.
@@The_Bastard_Of_Anjou > For some reason
--
The reason is emotional investment and cultural hegemony. The people giving the Bible a pass are Christians or others who have been culturally conditioned to give Christianity undue deference. Otherwise we'd throw it out with any number of other myths.
Mark leaves the resurrection narrative out as a literary device playing off the fact his audience knew what happened next, not because no resurrection narrative existed at the time it was written
Bart is a Historian. Love-You-Man!
Thought this was a response to WLCs response to the original video :p
The Resurrection is a story about an immortal Hebrew god who decided to be tortured to death to forgive the crimes committed against him by his children.
The strategy failed.
Made up crimes, lies told by some priests after the babylonian captivity to keep the lower classes subdued to their will.
How can you call something immoral without a transcendent objective morality?
@@werneropperman5342 Fun fact: If there is a transcendent objective morality, that means the christian god, who endorses immorality like slavery and genocide, is demonstrably immoral.
Curious how the moral argument ends up debunking your magical fairy.
@@Julian0101 even if what you say is true then it is within God's authority to determine what is moral and what is not. It is ultimately what it means to be God. On the other hand, naturalists can't ground objective morality and therefore they have no justification in calling others immoral. Hope you can grasp that.
@@werneropperman5342 Nope, if it is is within god's subjective authority to determine what is moral and what is not. Then your morality stops being *objective.*
And thus, how can you call something immoral without a transcendent objective morality?
Aint it curious how apologists cannot answer the same question you guys raise?
On the other hand, it doesnt matter if naturalists cant ground objective morality (they can with moral realism, but it doesnt matter for this topic), you already demonstrated your position definetively cannot do it.
And thus, just like no one needs to know what is the square root of 7 to know is not 2, or know how thunders are created to know they dont come from a magical hammer, No one needs to _ground objective morality_ to know your god doesnt work as an answer.
Nice job playing the other side objections. My question about Pilate is, how would any of the writers know Pilate’s thoughts? How would any writer have access to them unless they were (at best) a part of his inner circle? It’s obvious Pilate’s part of the Gospels is fiction.
Pilates residence was in Caesarea. So we have zero evidence that he was in the area. Nor would the highest Roman official spent his time talking with some criminal. Nor would say Roman official let some crowd vote on which criminal should go unpunished. A Roman official had crucified both Barabas and Jesus side by side. The fan fiction story was invented by uninformed authors or they simply thought their fiction would be enough for the uninformed cultists.
Craig just can’t stand the fact that Bart is widely considered one of the foremost experts on the Bible. He hates it and he has to try to discredit Bart. It’s even worse to him that he’s not a Christian.
Thanks for allowing my freedom of speech.
Having been born into a Christian “culture” … where Catholics and Protestants and those who believed in reincarnation … didn’t see “eye to eye” … I learned as I grew older (I am now 84 years of age) that what I was taught as a child … by two wonderful loving parents … needed to be “revised.”
My new theory … is an old scientific theory … that in one form or another … the universe and energy always existed … no creator … no plan … and that suffering of all forms of life … is natural.
No more trouble-making religion … NEEDED.
If I treat others with as much kindness as each situation allows … I can’t do better than my best.
And as the old saying goes … “Let the chips fall where they may.”
I wished you had this type of push back when WLC was being interviewed.
Alex does a good job as a "devils advocate" although, this time the terminology is in reverse 😂
When you see Dr. Ehrman's own pod cast, he states there are many problems with the crucifixion story. But when Alex asks him do you accept certain occurrences including the crucifixion he says yes. Why the contradiction ?
where do you have these talks? and have you read all those books at the back?
This is what your own page states: Bart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament. Cant see where it says you’re a historian either.
It's somewhat embarrassing for Christians that they can't just yield and realize that the resurrection is symbolic, not literal. They have to bend reason so badly to make it the other way. You can be spiritually "reborn" and experience it in your life. No need to torture old books for facts when they were clearly myths.
As Christians depend a lot on Paul and for Paul the resurrection is the centerpiece of his theology I can understand their resistence.
This is an incredibly uneducated take
0:00: 🤔 The speaker had a podcast episode with William Lane Craig discussing the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus, and they want to explore the established facts and their explanation.
3:55: 🤔 The speaker questions the existence of an empty tomb and the reliability of the gospel accounts of Jesus' resurrection.
6:49: 🤔 The video discusses the likelihood of Jesus being buried on the afternoon of his crucifixion and whether an exception was made due to his status as the son of God.
10:18: 📚 The video discusses the portrayal of Pontius Pilate in the Gospel of Peter and challenges the idea that Pilate was innocent and the Jews were solely responsible for Jesus' crucifixion.
13:46: 📚 The speaker discusses the physical appearances of Jesus and compares them to similar accounts in the ancient world.
Recap by Tammy AI
Great discussion. It’s interesting to see that Alex feels like the more effective critical thinker than Bart.
Yeah, Pilate had tears in his eyes when he condemned Jesus just like all the police had tears in their eyes when they booked trump
😂😂😂
Why should we believe a claim of 500 witnesses that not one is named, and why should we believe what Paul wrote? when he appears to have hijacked the Jewish Christian movement and developed his own version of it.
Did they seem him all together or seriatim? How well did they know Jesus before? Could they pick him out of a line-up? How far away were they? What were the lighting conditions. Did they hear him say anything? Did they all agree on the details? Who counted them? How?
Only he didn't "hijack the movement". That's nonsense that has long been debunked especially by the work of Jewish scholars like Pinchas Lapide or Shalom Ben-Chorin.
@@brianholly3555 There's no other details other than the claim of 500 witnesses, that's what makes it so dubious.
This topic shouldn't even be talked about. It's so idiotic. If I say I saw a dragon fly by yesterday and 500 people saw it too, would people believe me? Ofc not because I'm just one witness.
Why don’t you believe the history of how it all played out…
the best christian historian, evolving always.
Wishful thinking is wishful thinking no matter what century you're in. People have always been guilty of it. I just do not see the standard of evidence being applied to the claims of divinity.
What is the standard of evidence needed to satisfy your standard of truth?