I like how they are too afraid to debate Ehrman himself so they are just reacting on video's (while cutting some parts out) so they don't have to interact with him in real time.
Lol Craig makes reference to his debate with Ehrman in the video!!!!!!! But you’re right - no one is more afraid to debate people than William Lane Craig.
Whenever I hear or see the host, Kevin, I think of the tremendous loss he and his wife suffered when his son died in an accident. Christians everywhere still pray for you and your wife, Kevin. Christian love, from Canada.
I love hearing Bill's thoughts on other people's debates. Ehrman at first seems intimidating with his claims of all these errors and contradictions but when you dig into them...98% of them are pretty easily explained by how human beings tell a narrative. Ehrman seemingly has not clue the definition of the word contradiction. If I say I went to dog training class today, and there were 8 other dogs there, and another person said there were 8 other dogs and 2 trainers and 10 people...not a contradiction. Ehrman on the one hand says we shouldn't mash the gospels together because we lose what each writer wanted us to know in their own narrative, but then completely discounts how eyewitness accounts work, where each person will focus on different things.
Nobody cares about a dog training class. People do care when you're claiming you have a God in your backpocket and want to change society on that basis. You actually have to come with evidence, not those "Trust me bro" claims.
Were Craig a more aggressive individual, I'd be concerned he'd reach across and smack Ehrman. More than likely, Craig would just dress him down for not taking him seriously. It's that detail that makes me think Craig wouldn't agree for fear of "casting pearls before swine," so to speak. What would be the point?
I’m watching a series on the maximal facts case for the resurrection with Lydia McGrew. She said that it’s not a good idea to appeal to scholarly consensus when it comes to acknowledging that various groups of people experienced the appearance of Jesus. This is because many of those acknowledgements are negative evidence to what you want. Some of them say that the appearance was ephemeral. This is evidence to someone being dead, not alive! Just saying if that’s what you meant with having a large majority of opinion in support of the underlying facts @5:06.
I think "annihilated" is too strong. However, Bass couldn't see Bart's philosophical errors and respond appropriately. Hopefully he will watch this video and learn from it.
@@geraldbritton8118 To be clear, many of Ehrman's points were very bad and can be refuted. But, Bass just wasn't prepared at all, and did not bring a strong case.
15:40 you'd expect Ehrman to be an agnostic according to his argument because "ressurection" could be a future possibility (according to his naturalistic belief) through science especially with the projects like Cryonics. He has no excuse.
@@EuropeanQoheleth and ofcourse a thiest youtube channel wouldnt be complete without "special pleading". Inconsistencies are only a problem to other sky daddy philosophies, they are an inherent part of MY sky daddy philosophy.
What's the difference between the minimal facts and WLC broadly agreed upon evidence that he just listed? Do they overlap? Why does WLC make a point not to use the minimal facts
I think Craig uses a mix of minimal facts arguments and maximal data arguments. I think what he meant is minimal facts based on scholars’ consensus is are too minimal and subject to change. Not entirely sure
@4:40-6:40 Craig says we shouldn’t just rely on Paul alone, but that the five historical facts he lists that need an explanation are also well-attested in the Gospels as well, and enjoy broad support among NT scholars. IOW, not just Paul and the creed in 1 Cor. 15, but the resurrection evidence in all four Gospels as well, that need the most probable explanation.
@@Mark-cd2wf Gary Habermas' Minimal Facts Hypothesis uses certain historical facts about Jesus' resurrection that even skeptical scholars widely accept as reliable. These minimal facts include the -death of Jesus by crucifixion - the empty tomb - the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups -the sudden transformation of Jesus' disciples from doubters to fervent believers. Habermas argues that these facts provide a strong foundation for the resurrection claim, as they are agreed upon by scholars across the theological spectrum and require an explanation that best fits the available evidence. He does use the Gospels
True. Couldn't watch that debate. It was just awful. And it's not like I ever saw Ehrman make a convincing argument. But many people he debates are ill prepared.
I don't watch these kinds of debates anymore but I've seen enough on Bart to know he simply believes what he believes and will never change his mind and is simply uses it as a way to make money. If he's wrong, it will be a very bad time for him.
(1) Is it more probable, given the evidences, that Jesus rose again? (2) Is it more probable, given the same documents of evidences, that Jesus did not rise from the dead?
I’m an idiot with no post graduate degrees and my jaw dropped at the ridiculousness of Dr. Erhman’s comparison of the “laws” of mathematics and the Laws of Physics. I think spiritual darkness is the only such an intelligent and educated person can be so blind.
1, Cor , 3-15 is more direct than the evangelists. This is one source, one (early) creed, with the eyewitesses Paul, Peter, James and John, and it's near the events, at the beginning of christianity.
I applaud Dr. Craig's analysis of this debate and would add that the archaeological record would include the shroud of Turin, which involves the possibility of Christ"s resurrection being a nuclear event. As far as philosophy is concerned, I take C.S. Lewis over David Hume any day.
how could a real god act in a way that causes so much debate & descension after 2000 years....not worthy of a real god but worthy of the story of another religion albeit slit into hundreds of fragments. Amen
The best thing about this debate is seeing Ehrman all attentive and concentrated, as if he were a serious thinker, and then proceed to call mathematical axioms "law" and equate then with the laws of physics.
I have seen Craig making the rounds lately trying to DISCREDIT EHRMAN. Firt of all notice that Ehrman does not go out and criticize Christians while Craig has no problem with it...and he generally misstates Ehrman ....that should tell you something. Next, for Craig to make comments like Ehrman has not learned anything in last 20 years is beyond reality.....and he is not a historian while he has spent last 30 years at UNC teaching it. It is so obvious that Craig's attitude is just vindictive...he wants to strike back at Ehrman at all costs....and he says he is a Christian. Just consider the following...what is most probable...a man rising from the dead based on ancient authors who WE DONOT EVEN KNOW WHO WROTE YOUR GOSPELS and have been shown to be full of errors contradictions and lies...for instance Did Jesus come back in 40 years...no...and finally have criaig make a video trying to explain all the errors and contradictions in these books if he is so smart. Actually he must just be jealous that Ehrman is a more successful author.... Craig likes to just hear his own dribble as well...no one can ever follow his talks....HISTORICAL EVIDENCE....just consider this craig...your book says 500 people seen jesus and not one written testimony from any of them....none of the romans seen him...none of non-christain jews seen him...and craig says historical....watch that debate with ehrman and craig comes up with some mathemical model to believe...and he is the smart one here....have ehrman and craig take history test of the 1st 200 years...and let us see where he comes out.....craig must have nothing of value to add if he spends his time hitting at someone blindsided....
I like how they are too afraid to debate Ehrman himself so they are just reacting on video's (while cutting some parts out) so they don't have to interact with him in real time.
William Lane Craig vs. Bart Ehrman: ua-cam.com/video/vRTUrvTTRAQ/v-deo.html
Lol Craig makes reference to his debate with Ehrman in the video!!!!!!! But you’re right - no one is more afraid to debate people than William Lane Craig.
...
The only person afraid to debate was Dawkins when he ducked WLC at Oxford.
Awkward.
Whenever I hear or see the host, Kevin, I think of the tremendous loss he and his wife suffered when his son died in an accident. Christians everywhere still pray for you and your wife, Kevin. Christian love, from Canada.
I love hearing Bill's thoughts on other people's debates. Ehrman at first seems intimidating with his claims of all these errors and contradictions but when you dig into them...98% of them are pretty easily explained by how human beings tell a narrative. Ehrman seemingly has not clue the definition of the word contradiction. If I say I went to dog training class today, and there were 8 other dogs there, and another person said there were 8 other dogs and 2 trainers and 10 people...not a contradiction. Ehrman on the one hand says we shouldn't mash the gospels together because we lose what each writer wanted us to know in their own narrative, but then completely discounts how eyewitness accounts work, where each person will focus on different things.
Nobody cares about a dog training class. People do care when you're claiming you have a God in your backpocket and want to change society on that basis. You actually have to come with evidence, not those "Trust me bro" claims.
we need Craig vs. Ehrman again 😎
Were Craig a more aggressive individual, I'd be concerned he'd reach across and smack Ehrman. More than likely, Craig would just dress him down for not taking him seriously. It's that detail that makes me think Craig wouldn't agree for fear of "casting pearls before swine," so to speak. What would be the point?
Great video Dr. Craig. Love the insight you provide here.
"invincible ignorance" is the best thing I've heard in a while LOL
I will love to see william lane craig vs bart ehrman again
I’m watching a series on the maximal facts case for the resurrection with Lydia McGrew. She said that it’s not a good idea to appeal to scholarly consensus when it comes to acknowledging that various groups of people experienced the appearance of Jesus. This is because many of those acknowledgements are negative evidence to what you want. Some of them say that the appearance was ephemeral. This is evidence to someone being dead, not alive! Just saying if that’s what you meant with having a large majority of opinion in support of the underlying facts @5:06.
_”…evidence to someone being dead, not alive!”_
I love it! Great point (I am _totally_ going to steal that)!😁👍
Erhman refuses to believe and no logical arguments will ever change his mind. He is a candidate for a near death experience
Kevin - are those tee shirts available somewhere?
I'm a Christian and Bass completely got annihilated and argued like a child
I HATE agreeing with you on that, but I agree.
Agreed.
I think "annihilated" is too strong. However, Bass couldn't see Bart's philosophical errors and respond appropriately. Hopefully he will watch this video and learn from it.
@@geraldbritton8118
To be clear, many of Ehrman's points were very bad and can be refuted. But, Bass just wasn't prepared at all, and did not bring a strong case.
@@Mentat1231 yup. what I saw too. the worst was trying to equate physics and mathematics. just laughable
24:08 You can't divorce the theological argument from history. The theological claims were based on actual events.
15:40 you'd expect Ehrman to be an agnostic according to his argument because "ressurection" could be a future possibility (according to his naturalistic belief) through science especially with the projects like Cryonics. He has no excuse.
CONMEN what a nice way to describe the great prophets of your religions.
sigh It wouldn't be youtube without smug atheism in the comments. Every year it's the same.
@@EuropeanQoheleth and ofcourse a thiest youtube channel wouldnt be complete without "special pleading". Inconsistencies are only a problem to other sky daddy philosophies, they are an inherent part of MY sky daddy philosophy.
What's the difference between the minimal facts and WLC broadly agreed upon evidence that he just listed?
Do they overlap?
Why does WLC make a point not to use the minimal facts
I think Craig uses a mix of minimal facts arguments and maximal data arguments. I think what he meant is minimal facts based on scholars’ consensus is are too minimal and subject to change. Not entirely sure
@4:40-6:40 Craig says we shouldn’t just rely on Paul alone, but that the five historical facts he lists that need an explanation are also well-attested in the Gospels as well, and enjoy broad support among NT scholars.
IOW, not just Paul and the creed in 1 Cor. 15, but the resurrection evidence in all four Gospels as well, that need the most probable explanation.
@@Mark-cd2wf Gary Habermas' Minimal Facts Hypothesis uses certain historical facts about Jesus' resurrection that even skeptical scholars widely accept as reliable. These minimal facts include the
-death of Jesus by crucifixion
- the empty tomb
- the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups
-the sudden transformation of Jesus' disciples from doubters to fervent believers.
Habermas argues that these facts provide a strong foundation for the resurrection claim, as they are agreed upon by scholars across the theological spectrum and require an explanation that best fits the available evidence. He does use the Gospels
I’m not a fan of Ehrman, but Bass was just cringe worthy bad in this debate. Just plain terrible!
True. Couldn't watch that debate. It was just awful. And it's not like I ever saw Ehrman make a convincing argument. But many people he debates are ill prepared.
I don't watch these kinds of debates anymore but I've seen enough on Bart to know he simply believes what he believes and will never change his mind and is simply uses it as a way to make money. If he's wrong, it will be a very bad time for him.
History has not recorded ever a Resurrection, not one; mythology and myth has many.
Charlatans will insist a story is the same as evidence.
I would offer to you the historical document Matthew Chapter 28. You're welcome.
(1) Is it more probable, given the evidences, that Jesus rose again?
(2) Is it more probable, given the same documents of evidences, that Jesus did not rise from the dead?
I hope Dr Craig does not accept the medical advice from people 2000 years ago...
@15:25 Silly arguement. Basically it is I don't believe in resurrection because I don't believe in the resurrection. Terrible! 😂
I’m an idiot with no post graduate degrees and my jaw dropped at the ridiculousness of Dr. Erhman’s comparison of the “laws” of mathematics and the Laws of Physics. I think spiritual darkness is the only such an intelligent and educated person can be so blind.
1, Cor , 3-15 is more direct than the evangelists. This is one source, one (early) creed, with the eyewitesses Paul, Peter, James and John, and it's near the events, at the beginning of christianity.
I applaud Dr. Craig's analysis of this debate and would add that the archaeological record would include the shroud of Turin, which involves the possibility of Christ"s resurrection being a nuclear event. As far as philosophy is concerned, I take C.S. Lewis over David Hume any day.
how could a real god act in a way that causes so much debate & descension after 2000 years....not worthy of a real god but worthy of the story of another religion albeit slit into hundreds of fragments. Amen
The best thing about this debate is seeing Ehrman all attentive and concentrated, as if he were a serious thinker, and then proceed to call mathematical axioms "law" and equate then with the laws of physics.
Evaluating ?
You mean Christianising
Jesus: Call no man a fool. There will be bad consequences if you do.
WLC: Ehrman is a fool. I love Jesus.
Yeha he is right, All the smoke is right, All hail ALLAH and his true messenger. Also all hail MORMONISM.
I have seen Craig making the rounds lately trying to DISCREDIT EHRMAN. Firt of all notice that Ehrman does not go out and criticize Christians while Craig has no problem with it...and he generally misstates Ehrman ....that should tell you something. Next, for Craig to make comments like Ehrman has not learned anything in last 20 years is beyond reality.....and he is not a historian while he has spent last 30 years at UNC teaching it. It is so obvious that Craig's attitude is just vindictive...he wants to strike back at Ehrman at all costs....and he says he is a Christian. Just consider the following...what is most probable...a man rising from the dead based on ancient authors who WE DONOT EVEN KNOW WHO WROTE YOUR GOSPELS and have been shown to be full of errors contradictions and lies...for instance Did Jesus come back in 40 years...no...and finally have criaig make a video trying to explain all the errors and contradictions in these books if he is so smart. Actually he must just be jealous that Ehrman is a more successful author.... Craig likes to just hear his own dribble as well...no one can ever follow his talks....HISTORICAL EVIDENCE....just consider this craig...your book says 500 people seen jesus and not one written testimony from any of them....none of the romans seen him...none of non-christain jews seen him...and craig says historical....watch that debate with ehrman and craig comes up with some mathemical model to believe...and he is the smart one here....have ehrman and craig take history test of the 1st 200 years...and let us see where he comes out.....craig must have nothing of value to add if he spends his time hitting at someone blindsided....
Interesting that you never see all the times Ehrman attacks Christians and Craig in particular
I guess you’re bias so …..
@@Ashantia35exactly. One only needs to visit "Paulogia" to see Ehrman do exactly the same thing.
Ehrman deserves it. He's been incredibly dishonest over the past 2 decades.
@@2010Juve How so?
Too long. Didn't read.