Ehrman-Licona Debate Prove Jesus Rose from Dead
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Bart Ehrman flew to Kansas City, Missouri where he debated Christian apologist Mike R. Licona on the topic, "Can Historians Prove that Jesus Rose from the Dead." Is there historical evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? The event took place on February 28, 2008 at 7 p.m. held at the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. R. Philip Roberts, the seminary's president and the debate's moderator commented previous of the event, "We are thrilled to have both Bart D. Ehrman and Mike R. Licona on campus addressing the questions many people ask these days. Apologetics, the science of defending the Christian faith, are very important. Our culture is looking for an answer. This is a wonderful opportunity for the Christian community and others to learn if the claims of Christ are defensible."
The debate is discussed in the book "Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics" edited by Paul Copan, William Lane Craig. Chapter 9 is written by Michael Licona, which reviews this debate extensively from his perspective.
Program discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/...
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.
Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman and Mike R. Licona. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this media without express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman and Mike R. Licona is strictly prohibited.
How respectful Ehrman is with all he debates, facts not vitorol. Few debate as well and with as good humour as he does.
LICONA is the one who was extremely respectful to the shouting, bullying Bart who is taking cheap advantage of the fact that his opponent has lost his voice.
So two thousand years ago someone said that a man walked on water and died and came back to life? No reason to doubt this, sounds like a fact to me after all who hasn't seen a guy come back to life?
The second time Licona spoke all I could think was... "Projection".
Keep asking after any theistic argument:' Why do you think so?', and eventually it all boils down to wishful thinking and arguments from ignorance. It will never comes down to actual evidence like we can expect from anything real.
When you have nothing else, project. It reminds me of my narcissistic ex.
I have to say these churches are brave to host these debattes. most xians don't want to criticalle exam their belief because they know in their heart of hearts that it doesn't pass the muster or that it is the devil whispering in their ear
There are people who believe they have seen Elvis Presley since he died.
If you go to Las Vegas today, you will see lots of men who look like Elvis Presley.
There are people who say they saw Elvis Presley in a fish n chip shop in Birmingham UK.
Is that evidence that Elvis Presley rose from the dead or that people are telling lies/mistaken ?
Objection: It's not a "historical fact" that Jesus' followers believed they saw him after death. It's only a fact that we have some anonymous written accounts claiming that they did.
Theres like 5 things wrong with that statement he made. I havent gotten to ehrmans reply but i assume he didnt point that out. Of his 4 points...thats 1 licona point you can toss in the trash
Not to mention Mark is widely considered the original and matthew luke and john are copies with added (and hugely conflicting) details
people see all sorts of weird stuff. that wouldn't be a strong argument anyway.
We have copies of copies, of copies, of copies, of copies, of copies, of copies of anonymous written statements that don't claim to be eye witnesses, making huge claims of events we have never seen since or before and no secular scholar at the time wrote about these events and in some cases the events contradict each other and claim of events we know didn't happen like the census which never happened. That's as solid proof if I ever heard of one.
When I was a kid back in my forgotten-by-time little town, we'd make tales of seeing the ghost of a headless woman, some would say she's wearing white clothes, other would say the clothes were dark. The tales would spread across the village as truth, and people would be genuinely afraid to go out at night. It probably can be historically proven that people's imagination is real.
12:19 “Horizons are like sunglasses through which we look and everything we see is covered by the lenses of our horizons.”
You know you're in trouble when you have to explain your metaphors with further metaphors. I have a sneaking suspicion that all of Christianity is based on misunderstood metaphor.
After listening to Bart and reading his historical data....why do I feel like I have been lied to my entire life. What other lies have I believed
?
Just be thankful for the man, I've been thankful for years, Dr Bart is the man, stay safe, also you will learn lots more from him
Ehrman is using historical evidence and facts to make his argument. Licona is just preaching to the choir doing the faith-bake shake and jive. Christian Apologetics is circular logic pushed to the Nth degree.
How is it circular? Prove it!
@@SugoiEnglish1 "God done it. Problem solved."
Robert Karma you said it precisely. . Christian pa$$tor never answers question with unambiguous verses of their own bible because it doesn’t support their narrative of son of Mary Jesus. They always look all over the Bible to find weak ambiguous verses to support their nonsense. They mostly really on gospel according to John which is latest and most corrupted among bibles . Or they produce from their own mind.
Mike Licona in first part of the debate (paraphrased): "The resurrection hypothesis is independent of god, you can believe the resurrection and not say anything about its cause." Mike Licona in the second part: "A natural resurrection is improbable, but that's not the hypothesis; the hypothesis is that God raised Jesus from the dead." See through that shit.
Mike: "you may be surprised that historians can't agree amongst themselves"
Me: looks over at 200 christian denominations
Mike: says the same arguments every time
Ehrman: engages those points, clearly identifies their faults, and attempts to push the debate into more productive and good faith areas.
Mike: “I don’t know why Bart didn’t address the points I made.”
Man, you had BETTER get your ducks in a row if you're EVER going to have Dr. E. at any debate on this subject. I've had the pleasure of seeing him speak in person and engaging him in Q & A and the info spills out like it's on the tip of his tongue no matter what the question. He's on top of his game always. Brilliant man.
Anna Abrante My college wanted Dr. E and Ratio Christi was down to co-sponsor... Until we wanted E then all of a sudden we stopped hearing from them.
Like a JW,
If there were "proof" we would not have this discussion. Those who believe Jesus rose from the dead physically ignore science, the contradictory Resurrection tales and the earliest writer, Paul, who never used the word for physical resurrection (he said "raised", meaning awoke like from a dream). The Scriptures are fairly clear that the post-death experiences were visions - Jesus appears suddenly, he disappears, he floats to the clouds, those who knew him do not recognize him or are not sure it is really him.
A lion thrown into the lambs' den would be more apt.
Really??? Why don't you go watch a debate where Licona has his voice and let's see if you can say that crap? The fact that you people completely ignore the fact that he had lost his voice and act as if this was a fair debate is really astonishing and it really shows how full of shit you people are.
@@vicb7259 how does his voice affect the evidence and logic and reasoning.
Vic B I watched the Licona/Dillahunty debate. Licona was embarrassingly poor. At one point he suggested that it was reasonable for people to initially attribute magic tricks to the supernatural if they weren't in full awareness of the facts. That kind of credulity for the supernatural is a big problem.
"Can Historians Prove that Jesus Rose from the Dead?"
Common sense alone tells us they can't, so it's a pointless debate.
@@HugoPranavan What is a "theologian"?
Tariq Khan
Maybe Jesus was just a fictional character like Moses and Abraham.😉
@@ramigilneas9274 no btw bart erhman had a debate about that,if jesus was a true chracter, it was the only debate christians wished him to won lol
To be fair, common sense is never by itself good enough for anything else than common stuff, and even then it’s pretty mediocre.
However, basic epistemology does allow us to reject it fairly easily.
What if Jesus was resuscitated 😂
If the Bible is not historically accurate, how can we accept that it is theologically accurate?
SIMPLE. As Erhman said, not a single error, scribal or otherwise, affects the essential teachings of Christianity.
History is trying to get a accurate picture, theology, is to cater to what you feel, or what you want regardless of what evidence shows
@@SugoiEnglish1 Ehrman is just throwing idiots a sop. Why do you think HE left Christianity himself, after discovering for himself that the Bible is historically inaccurate? (Well, to be fair, he's also mentioned that what really made him lose his faith, after his historical studies weakened it, was pondering the problem of suffering or "evil," which Christianity does NOT adequately solve, and in fact only makes more outrageous with its theology.)
@TO NO Actually we don't and we don't need to be told not to kill either. We're hard wired to be kind and not kill each other. Yes, there are exceptions and there are people born with 3 hands and our emergent social behaviour is much more complex than the simple rules that apply to a wasp. Wasps don't fall in love or borrow money and have no political or strategical agenda to occupy a piece of land.
If you need to be told to be kind and not kill you need a hell of a lot more than being commanded to by an invisible friend.
Johan Ericsson okay why does Bruce metzger say his faith is increased? Surely the top manuscript Scholar from the 20th century would know what’s going on
There is no proof of any kind or type whatsoever. There simply cannot be any proof. It’s ridiculous to even discuss this heap of B.S. It’s an insult to any intellectual thinking person.
Mike's logic: It's in the bible, therefore it's a historical fact.
It's amazing how Christians limit miracle claims to their own holy book and not include those of other religions, for example, Mohammed being taken into heaven on a pegasus.
not pegasus but other being no one knows
@Παναγιώτης ΜΧΣ where is that miracle recorded?
@Παναγιώτης ΜΧΣ How so? (What apples and what oranges?)
He’s using eyewitness testimonies to draw the most probable conclusion?? Also the truth of Islam rests on the single person of Mohammed whereas the gospel writers and apostles has every reason not to immortalize such an unheard of and dangerous truth
Is the night journey of prophet Muhammad a fundamental doctrine of the Islamic belief? No. Do Muslims need to *’historically’* prove it? No.
Very unlike (one of) the 2 main doctrines of Christianity. Theists believe in the supernatural to prove it, no one needs to claim they have “hysterical” evidence for it.
"Not tonight, gentlemen."
*eyeroll* Good grief. Drama much? Comparing historians to gang members because you don't want to comply with the burden of proof... how intellectually juvenile.
utubepunk my sentiments exactly. Did you notice his cop out at the end on the last question? I'd like to see these two debate biblical inaccuracies.
a degree from liberty university. can you even call that a degree?
A degree from Liberty U. is like Richard Dawkins giving you a gold star on your essay you wrote about The Origins of Species.
Except one involves facts, not magic.
ryan neitzel Didn't Kent Hovind receive his "PHD" from Liberty? Got to have something to hang on your wall, despite the claim that this "diploma mill" is a well known fraud with no accreditation what so ever.
Rob Degrey Nope. The Parole got his Masters and his PhD from Patriot University, an unaccredited correspondence university run out of someone's house in Colorado. His PhD dissertation reads like an address to a group of High School students. "Hello. My name is Ken Hovind - - - -- -"
Rob Degrey Hovind wishes he got his PhD from Liberty. Liberty is a joke compared to most schools, but it is technically an accredited university. Hovind got his supposed PhD from an unaccredited correspondence school that makes Liberty look like MIT.
+Bernise Anders - you don't know how to get a degree from Liberty? Roll, tear, and then wipe.
It seems that dr Licona keeps using 'points' made up by himself in every debate with prof Ehrman. Too much philosophy, not enough historical facts.
Supernatural claims require supernatural level of evidence. It’s unfair to compare natural events like titanic sinking details and supernatural ones, especially in a book that is supposed to be divinely written and perfect.
Bart Ehrman rocks!
The fact that Licona complains of 'anti-supernatural bias' tells us a lot.
I come out so unsatisfied after watching these debates, I wish to watch a debate where the opponent of Professor Ehrman is on par with him.
i just wanna hear Bart Ehrman speak - Ill keep looking :)
You cannot debate Christians bc fantasy and reality are non-overlapping majesterium.
He should have prayed for a cure for his bad voice so that he could give a good case. Then again, he probably did.
One would need more than an invisible man in the sky for prayer to work lol
+lljksilk Prayer has shown to be not effective for anything... Sorry...
I love reading and watching Dr. Ehrman's arguments, debates and thoughts. But, this one was tough. It was like watching Mike Tyson punching a Kindergartner over and over and over. I'm not saying Mr. Licona is helpless but he certainly was outclassed.
I'm guessing there are no libraries along the route of his history highway.
+Jefferson Montoya Michael Licona is also a doctor. You have no idea.
Not all doctors are equal. #PlentyOfIdeas
Jefferson Montoya Regardless, it is very disrespectful of you to refer to Ehrman as "Dr." and not do Licona the same courtesy. It shows your resentment of anybody against your Christ-denial.
***** No, silly boy, it does not. I referred to him respectfully as "Mr. Licona". One does not always have to refer to every doctor as Dr.
Mr. is just fine. If it's fine for a President (and it is) it is fine for a doctor who got owned in a debate.
Thanks for playing.
+M. Aaron
Licona's a doctor; therefore Jesus rose from the dead.
Debate starts at 5:55
It's good to see such a potentially emotion-fraught debate being conducted in a friendly atmosphere. Mr. Licona's argument semmed rather circular. But he gives an impression of an intelligent and honest person.
If Jesus had Godly powers, he would still be alive today living on earth for people to visit. Resurrection & ascendance to a heaven is a hoax that conveniently occurs in the past and easily fools the gullible folks.
I think Bart is a credible source as he studies these issues in depth. Relying on faith is not a valid argument, although I once was one who did exactly that. Glad I grew up, and realized that this is the only life we will enjoy, despite some very difficult times. In the end, it has been a wonderful experience, and I treasure the people and events that made it so fulfilling. After this, I will revert back to the place I came from, without the slightest inconvenience. Note: My last sentence was stolen from Mark Twain.
Bart was the easy winner here, but that might be because the topic was so bold an assertion for Licona to make. Bart did not have to prove there is no reason for believing in the resurrection only that the historical evidence alone cannot get one there. One requires faith to believe that, which was probably not too controversial a position to accept even for most of the evangelicals in the room.
It would have been a little fairer, if Mike had actually prepared by reading books other than the bible. I am appalled, by his statement that he is not going to hand over his evidence and equating you with a thug, it was a veiled threat by an angry man struggling to defend his undefendable position. I was hoping to hear a reasoned debate, not an apologetic rant.
Damn, nice one.
Very perceptive.
Bart, dude, calm down. Your stridency undermines your argument.
Dr. Ehrman is a bit too strident in his delivery. I wish he’d tone it down a bit. I love his insights but he doesn’t need to shout.
Bart has the same questions Ahmed Deedat had
@@eiddolon What specific theological claims of Islam?
Bart Ehrman, true to form, was very convincing; Mike Licona, by contrast, was unconvincing. Bart Ehrman spoke as a scholar and historian; Mike Licona, however, spoke as a scholarly believer. This is a very enlightening and interesting discussion.
Thanks Dr. Ehrman. It’s nice to get the full picture. I’ll keep watching and reading your stuff.
I wish Erhman came to my church back in '08 when I was a kid, would've gotten out of the faith immediately probably
The contradictions was not what got me out of the faith, but it was certainly a big part of it. I remember when I found my own because someone's kid was named after a King in Kings and Chronicles. I said "oh man, I love that dude, he was a cool king that did some good, then didn't do enough, but later did a lot of good and was good in the eyes of the lord. My pastor was there and said "no, Asa did evil in the eyes of the lord" and I was like "woah, are you sure? I'm certain he did good."
Guess what? It depends which book you read *head smack*. I was like "huh, why is that different, this upsets me". But when you're that indoctrinated, you find any reason you can other than 'it's not reliable'.
Always a pleasure to listen to Mr. Ehrman
Sure. Especially when his opponent is physically unwell and has lost his voice so that nothing you find uncomfortable enters your stupid and dishonest ears.
The debate was respectful and that is something nice to see. I feel bad for Mike Licona throat sore and difficult to talk. In the end, it is a clear win for Bart Ehrman.
NO MAN ALIVE CAN WIN A DEBATE ON THIS SUBJECT WITH BART EHRMAN. HE IS JUST TOO POWERFULL AND KNOWLEDGEABLE .
Always makes a guest feel welcome when the moderator introduces him with the wrong name.
Really liked this debate. Too bad Mike's voice gave out.
Next debate?
Did Scooby Doo REALLY like Scooby snacks?
Bart --- 40 :00 ---------- YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE LEGEND !!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I need to make a compilation so when someone asks me why i dont believe theres a god...i can be...
Here. Watch these. Ehrmans rant there would make that cut
40:00
Bart Ehrman remains unchallenged. Zero historical evidence for miracles and the divinity of Christ. Faith is faith; reason appeals to skepticism.
Bart was very passionate and thorough.
I get so so weary of "believers" using the argument "my jesus history is true because I want it to be true and your facts are to tough for me to dispute so you're being to hard on me" Bart rules, believers drool!
What will end Christianity, what is already ending Christianity, aren't debates like this. Their end is due to the fallacy of the trinity, which is truly incomprehensible, unexplainable, and 100% man-made and not supported by their own doctrines.
Historians can only prove that people believed that Jesus rose from the dead. That's all.
I'm confused as to why Professor Bart Ehrman debates people who are intellectually dishonest but not Richard Carrier who has solid arguments?
+LasergunExtreme I think they remain skeptical of mythicist hypothesis for good reason. However, that Jesus existed a priori, should not be the null position. I think the majority of modern scholars, who are rightly secular, still don't apply enough pressure on their historical assumptions.
I think Carrier appears to be radical not because his arguments have been seriously challenged (even Ehrman had a difficult time providing concrete evidence in his book 'Did Jesus Exist), but because the consensus of scholarship has yet to shift to a more skeptical position of the historicity of Jesus; NOT to mysticism. I do agree with you, if I can interpret what you said correctly, that Carrier's big mistake is making concrete claims of knowledge for something he cannot prove.
This all being said, I think the problem lies with each side. Skepticism should be the first stop in investigating any claim.
If Carrier, a peer reviewed historian, is an idiot what does that make you?
And what would he debate with Carrier,may I ask?
Carriers claims are poor he says there are no contemporary evidence for Jesus then we have to put Alexander history in doubt
@@varunkurup300 Alexander the Great? If there was no archeological evidence that confirmed the contemporary historical record then we would. There is no archeological evidence for anything Jesus is said to have done and no contemporary historian seemed to have noticed Jesus and then you have the gospels that can't even have happened in the same time, specifically the vastly different stories of his birth, one happened during the reign of a Syrian governor and in another Jesus was born after the death of the same governor. Different last words, different people seeing the tomb empty, angels giving different messages to different people and in some stories no message was given. There was no census telling people to look for the city of their ancestors. Prisoners sentenced to death were buried in mass graves, etc. etc.
In none of the stories people likely saw Jesus after his death. There was exactly one person who claimed to have seen Jesus in a vision while other people were with him. That's hearsay. It's claimed that a group of people saw Jesus alive. That's hearsay upon hearsay.
How often in the history of humanity have we seen a dead person be resurrected and confirmed? Try it for yourself. Jump before a train and come back from the dead. You'd be the first. It's highly unlikely that any of the hearsay is anywhere near correct.
So there's no evidence and it's highly unlikely. The claims about Alexander are consistent with reality, making it at least possible. Independent historians telling many of the same stories and being reliable about other facts make it believable that he actually existed and much of the stories is true. Archeological evidence confirming the historical records make it pretty certain that he existed and that the historical records aren't similar by coincidence but because they were based on a real person and actual facts.
None of that can be said about Jesus. The writers of the gospels were anonymous and the gospels don't line up and the archeological evidence contradicts all of the gospels.
Bart crushed that poor guy. The voice, the merciless destruction... I felt bad.
***** awww... did you get offended, little boy?
Chloe Seconds I'm not offended. I'm just a little taken aback by the stupidity of the clear anti-Christians/Christ-haters.
Can you explain how can someone hate that in which he or she does not believe exists? Do you hate Vampires or leprechauns? No, little boy, we don't hate Christ because he doesn't exist. If he did exist, he was just a cool hippie from 2000 years ago and I don't think anyone today would waste their energy on hating some guy from year 0. What we hate is dumb ideas and people's gullibility that allows them to be affected by those dumb ideas.
Chloe Seconds (Comment got longer than I planned. But please read. Thanks.)
Wait, why do you say Christ doesn't exist? Do you go so far as denying Jesus' historical existence? Even Bart Ehrman would never go so far, and he's an extreme skeptic. (He probably actually scorns such "historians".) No sober historians deny Jesus' historical existence.
I will tell you why I can say you hate Jesus Christ. It is revealed in your entire attitude. You treat the subject of Christianity as one big fat joke, when it is thanks to this religion that you enjoy many of the benefits you possess today. Take education for example. Christians were the ones that started universities and libraries hundreds of years ago. They were also the ones that showed great interest in the natural sciences, since they understood that God designed things intelligently.
Did you know that until the mid 19th century doctors and nurses in hospitals only rarely washed their hands, even going from dissecting a corpse to delivering children, resulting in many, many deaths? Ignaz Semmelweis, an Austrian-Hungarian physician enforced in his own hospital that a rule that staff should wash their hands in a chlorinated solution of lime before each examination. He knew thousands of women were needlessly dying every year and nobody would listen to him.
But you know it caught on because today we take these things for granted.
(I've heard people say he got this idea of washing hands from the Bible where it says to wash one's hands under _running_ water as opposed to stale water. Though I not verify this but would not be surprised if it was the case.)
And Jesus was not some cool hippie from 2000 years ago. He was one of three possibilities: A liar, a lunatic, or Lord.
Please think about these things. Why won't you just humble yourself? Can't you see that you hate the idea of having to answer to a holy just God? He is angry with the wicked every day, the Bible says. But he loves us because he wants us to return... And he will forgive, if we repent and believe in Jesus as personal Lord and Savior.
***** oh man, you're being nice, decent and want to have a civil discussion now. I liked it more when we were jabbing each other with a little name-calling. But ok, I guess I'll be nice too :)
Ok, I'm not saying that Jesus didn't exist. I will say that the Jesus character described in the bible didn't exist because I don't believe that a virgin girl was, without her concent, impregnated supernaturally, that the son she gave birth to rose people from the dead, walked on water, healed the sick, turned water into wine, and rose from the dead himself. And no, I really don't hate anyone, let alone a made-up version of Jesus.
With regard to the benefits I enjoy in my lifetime such as education or science advanced to where it is today, I don't give religion the credit you do. I'll give Christian people all the credit they deserve for their contribution to our social and scientific advancement. And perhaps some of the ideas in the bible helped or motivated those same Christians to establish and achieve certain advancements. But that does not mean that the religious teaching is true. I enjoy algebra and trigonometry invented by muslims, but I don't think Islam is true. I love democracy as I'm sure you do, too, but I don't think you believe in Zeus or any other Greek god. Bottom line is, the contribution to the society should be evaluated and judged on its own merits. Implying that those merits mean something more or that they are a proof of the supernatural is wrong. Simultaneously, horrible crimes against humanity have been and continue to be committed in the name of religion. I could argue that blows causing major setbacks to human progress have also been dealt by Christianity and Islam, but that's a long discussion.
I've heard Christians claim that Jesus was either a lier, a lunatic, or a lord. How about he was neither of those. How about the possibility of others making things up about who jesus was, what he did, and what he said as they made copies of the old manuscripts by hand and translated them into multiple languages over thousands of years? Now what's more probable: the fact that Jesus was a lord or that humans made a mistake or lied? I see people make mistakes and lie every day. I've never seen a lord and neither did you. Therefore, I see no reason to humble myself before an idea made up by uneducated men thousands of years ago. What humbles me is the beauty of nature, the vastness of the cosmos, and life in all forms. And I don't want to waste one second believing silly things while I can enjoy this wonderful life, the one I know I have.
Nice chatting with you, Aaron.
Bart doesn't need to shout. He comes across better when he doesn't.
I laughed a little when Licona was talking about attempting to defend a failing hypothesis; i mean what does he think he's doing as an apologist.
Laughing at someone who is unwell and has lost his voice. That is classic behavior of the kinds of immoral punks who populate threads like this.
Licona knows everything Ehrman said. But Licona was fired for saying the zombie apocalypse in Mark isn't literal truth. So he in the cult trap, forced to debate dishonestly, knowing why he arguments fail before he makes them.
I wonder whether he's persuaded himself it's worth it.
The resurrection of Jesus is a myth.
It didn't happen and everybody knows that it didn't happen. But it doesn't matter.
What matters is that people are willing to give money to someone who says it did happen.
They like being told that it is possible to live for ever. Lazarus survived death, so could you.
I dont think licona understands what evidence means.
None of them ever do
"-What is more probable?" That question is always, always answered "-Improbable, yes. But not impossible!". And then you end up having to talk about burden of proof. I don't think trying to explain occams razor to believers is a good tactic. They simply don't get it.
Débat intéressant, il est souhaitable qu'il soit sous-titré en français et pourquoi pas en arabe aussi. Je m'adresse à ceux qui ont les moyens de le faire. Merci
bonjour , vous croyez au 40 vierges pour les (Martyres ) mais pas en la résurrection de Jésus-christ ! quand a la vision de Mohamed de l'ange Gabriel j'en doute fort vu la vie et les barbaries commise par Mohamed tuant décapitant plus de 700 personnes durant la journée ! tuant une poétesse ET Son oncle âgées et consonant un mariage avec une enfant de 9 ans ! Jésus christ est mort et ressuscité pour les péchés du monde et c'est le seul des prophètes qui reviendra a la fin du monde vous ..nous juger ! comment accepter cela sans lui accordé la résurrection ? Les voies de Dieu sont impenetrable comment ne pas lui accordé ce Miracle fait en son nom pour Marquée l'humanité durant des siècles et des siècles :) votre plaisir de nier la Crucifiction et la résurrection ainsi que les Miracles De Christ est une hérésie une insulte faite a Dieu lui meme ! et surtout dite moi pourquoi ce fait la(resurrection ) serait un mensonge mais aussi dans quel but :) nier aussi tout les Miracle fait par Jésus-christ et sa vie remplie d'amour et de compassion pour les autres quel qui soit sa vie a été plus exemplaire et il est Née de la volonté de Dieu lui meme ! et oui encore un Miracle les voies de DIEU sont impénétrable comment voulez vous savoir ? Judas la compris un peu tard :)
+alain baggi
Il n'existe aucunes preuves de l'existence même de Jésus, il n'y a aucun témoin de sa vie ou de sa résurrection. tout les écrits du Nouveau Testaments sont fait pas des auteurs qui n'ont jamais connu Jésus. Les évangiles ont été écrits au moins 40 a 60 ans après les faits. Les écrits de Paul (du moins ceux qui ne sont pas des contrefaçons) ne mentionne rien de la vie ou du ministère de Jésus. En fait Paul ne prend même pas en considération l'enseignement des apôtres et avec qui il est en conflit à chaque fois qu'il doit leur faire face.
Les évangiles eux-même restent inconnus des premiers Chrétien et n'arrive que dans l'histoire avec Irénée de Lyon qui est le premier a en faire référence en l'an 180 apr. J-C.
il n'existe aucune mention du nom de Jésus dans aucun document Juif, Grec ou Romain laïcs ni dans aucune correspondance privé durant tout le premier siècle de notre ère. La première fois que les Chrétiens sont mentionnés c'est dans une correspondance de Pline le Jeune à l'empereur Trajan en l'an 112 apr. J-C. à qui il demande conseil pour savoir quoi faire avec le groupe de chrétien qui grandit dans sa province. Et rien n'est dit a propos de Jésus. En fait il n'y a aucune preuves d'ailleurs qu'il y a eu une persécution des Chrétiens avant le début du 2e siècle
+alain baggi Doucement doucement, mon gars; donc vous reconnaissez que Jésus (psl) n'est qu'un prophètes comme beaucoup d'autres et son avantage est de revenir à la fin des temps. Exactement ce que disent les musulmans. L'Islam n'a jamais nié les miracles de Jésus (psl), au contraire, il a cité des miracles que votre bible n'a pas rapporté.
Allez maintenant jouer à la pétanque, vieux.
sidahmed azed non la je rentre de la Mer du nord plus le moment de jouer a la pétanque ;)
belle nuit ...scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/11059963_1053127804731347_6767525432221030722_n.jpg?oh=5178d70fb354807630eb59cfedc5a355&oe=5692B7D8
Ehrman is too loud. I was tried to listen with my Bluetooth ear buds but my ear start hurting he is too loud. Even though with all the way low volume on my phone. I had to stop watching him
God will raise everyone from dead in the day of judgement. If God raised Jesus from dead then he gets no credit God gets the credit.
Jesus raised Jesus. Jesus says in John 2:19: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”
But, but, but, muh checkpoints!
Maybe bart would have been given a small dose of tetrodotoxin and the doctors couldnt revive him and an hour later he was given the antitoxin and then a miracle was declared
A student of history? That sounds like a hobby to me.
And study of theology is a fetish.
Sorry Mike... you didn't get the job done
I don't know where this Licona guy gets off on telling a historian how to do history. But then again, attempting to discredit Dr. E is an old favorite of many apologists who aren't historians. Such as Craig's tired "He's not a historian he's just a textual critic." line.
The earliest gospel Mark had literally NOTHING to say about the supposed resurrection. The women flee, saying "nothing to anyone, because they were too frightened" - thats IT, finito. A man has come back to life and the writer has nothing to say about that? Fishy. Very very fishy.
I've read a number of history books. Some mention Jesus, Mohamid etc. but all avoid miracles because they are, by definition, the least likely events to have occurred.
After listening to Bart Ehrman's opening remarks.
I will advise that future debaters should be careful.
To avoid been annihilated.
The Son of man when they asking him for a miracle he said the only miracle in the miracle of jonah
He was neither killed nor crucified Quran 5 157
Your book is just as fictional as theirs
Kankun ...comparing Abrahamic ‘holy’ books is akin to comparing various piles of animal dung: sure, both have their differences in texture, color, odor, etc., but when you get right down to it, they’re all just shit.
nathan mckenzie faces bro that Quran bullshit is the same too, fake ass islam
decided to look it up- apparently some sort of illusion was created to make it look like he was crucified when he wasn't? That's awfully convenient and completely impossible to historically prove, especially since the quran was written centuries after his death- thus it is a completely unreliable source.
Once again Bart knocks it out of the parkL!!!
Against a physically unwell opponent with a no voice? Congratulations! Why don't you watch their LATER debates where the same Licona knocks your hero out of the park?
@@vicb7259 having a bad voice doesn't excuse him from having a bad argument with no evidence to back up a miraculous claim
Brilliant. Complete evisceration. I never thought this subject would become so compelling...I was wrong.
Bart: 1. I was surprised that you didn't mention that plenty of people have been martyred for beliefs that Christian fundamentalists would not agree were true, Joseph Smith, Jones Town, Nine-eleven and other Muslim suicide missions.
2. You may wish to consider the claim by neurology professors that Paul of Tarsus provides sufficient written clues to provisionally diagnosis him with Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, a partial seizure disorder that produces vivid ecstatic hallucinations, hyper-graphia, hyper-religiosity and sudden religious conversion behavior (often in serial fashion to multiple religious faiths).
Forget historical evidence, even the Gospels don't support resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I was hoping (because I enjoy rooting for underdogs) that Mr. Licona's arguments were going to be strong. Alas. His neatest trick was suggesting that we can remove faith from the question by simply refusing to consider who or what resurrected Jesus. Great Zombie Jesus! I thought. We don't have to believe in God to prove that a person may be resurrected.
Were you people aware that Licona was not well in this debate and had lost his voice??? The way you people are ignoring that fact is astonishing.
Licona's logic is beyond stupid
Licona provides a great deal of blah-blah-blah that goes nowhere.
Let's face it, we are not being told the truth about how the bible came to be, what it is, and who wrote it in fundamentalist evangelical churches. I applaud Dr Erhman for consistently presenting clear evidence. I've watched about 12 of his debates now and I always sense that he's being the most honest and least biased when presenting.
Religious nutters trying (and of course failing epically) to use reason and evidence is endlessly entertaining to me. Who needs comedians ? :)
Apollonius was born after Jesus Christ. And it is interesting that apparently first century people did not know the difference between a ghost and a real person!
roughly 15 years apart - but what's your point?
Ehrman is devastating here.
The other guy is urinating in the wind.
The definition of resurrection was confusing...
what is the differences between Lazarus and Jesus.. why resurrection only apply to Jesus..
Lazarus is miracle of Jesus with permission of The God..one of thr prove of Messiah to Jewish people
Dead prophet being raised alive... for what reason?
again from 01:27:00 professor Ehrman supasses himself ... like a rocket!
yeah that totally exposed Mike for sure. It was the nail in the coffin .
Matthew 7:21-23 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
In spite of the handicap of an increasing case of laryngitis Mike Licona began this debate well with an excellent coverage of the means for determining historical truth and a four point test for checking the veracity of individual items. Unfortunately his presentation exploded the moment he introduced this three criteria for concluding that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth was an historical event: what he called the undisputed facts of the crucifixation of Jesus, his appearance to many disciples and his appearance to and conversion of Paul. Bart Ehrman chopped these "facts" into firewood in short order. Further, since miracles are, by definition the least probable explanation for anything they are unacceptable historical explanations.
Licona apparently doesn’t know how debates work.
Nope.
Mike Licona is the kid who is studying for a PhD by tele-education at the University of Pretoria, South Africa (because it's cheaper, given the exchange rate). Bart Ehrman is the former fundamentalist who reads ancient Greek, Hebrew, and several other Biblical languages.
Mistrial was because he said something that was not a material fact and would prejudice the jury against the things they were supposed to be deciding on.
This is a bad start to his arguments.
“I should be allowed to make prejudicial comments at the insurance company and get away with it. Why won’t you let me unfairly prejudice the jury?”
Theology is just someone trying to give a very material shield on a spiritual core that cannot be explained by human ingenuity. History is suited more to explaining what would probably have taken place in the past in the material world in a material sense and if there's not enough evidence to prove high probability then very likely the historian can be trusted to be saying the right thing. A theologian on the contrary is convicted that faith is not to be explained but be experienced. He may be right or wrong in a material sense but he is definitely saying the right thing to his own inner being, or so he thinks and defends. The problem is when one's inner perception and perspective is made into a way to socialise with other humans .. a lie or modification could be amplified and reproduced into a million ways.
So each person is right to his own inner self.. but for the rest of us we could choose either side.. i personally feel the historian talks better sense and truth than the theologian. Well, unless I can experience that "personal faith or belief" by extraordinary ways..
Paul wasn't an 'enemy' in the same way that people who converted to an opposing 'religion' were; Paul was hauling people to prison and actively persecuting them.
Sometimes debators from either side are so in over their heads it is apparent from almost the start.
Other times, the debate being "won or lost" can come down to one side getting something past the opponent. Something that isn't pointed out and highlighted as bullshit. It's like a game of chess. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing...boom. 1 move...1 error can cost you the game.
Ive been listening in the backround. Licona wasn't impressive. Ive heard that stuff before.
Ehrman...had some great stuff, phrased perfectly etc.
I don't know licona. I havent made up my opinion of him. However...this part set off my alarm bells.
50:10 ...."It is a historical fact that some of jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon afyer his execution"
That statement has so many holes in it.
Stating that some people believed x has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it happened...or if the text is reliable. Have no idea if followers actually believed that. Have texts...potentially reliable stating that, but they aren't necessarily reliable being potentially decades and decades if not a century apart from the alleged event.
So...have no clue if thise followers actually did believe.
But even if they did believe that....and even if the texts are accurate....theit belief has nothing to do with the veracity.
Do you know what the average "educated" american believes?! Beliefs can be so far from the truth that what people believe can be completely irrelevant.
Licona making that statement, to me, is what a snake does. I label WLC a snale bc he does that too. He makes misleading statements that for a variety of reasons either arent caught or arent responded to.
I know what you're doing and I don't like it
Bart, you animal! I can't figure out what people think when they challenge and legend .....
Who keeps asking licona to speak this is the third debate I've seen him show up in and every time he sounds ignorant to very basic principals and kinda delusional.
You kinda feel sorry for licona, watching him drown in constant fallacies.
bible was censured, almost all bible researchers learned they lied & original message proved Islam is true. Jesus's figuratively a son like Adam & David, Quran says Jesus is like Adam in creation. luke 3,22 at baptism said today i begot thee originally as an adult. Mathew 27,17 says there were 2 Jesus & 1 got away like Quran says, & john 5,7 was a trinity forgery verse!
Poor Licona... he was completely obliterated by Ehrman.
Sure. It is easy to "obliterate" someone when the person has lost his voice and cannot speak. The dishonesty of you people is really astonishing. Why don't you morons watch their later debates when Licona has his voice and see him crush Ehrman?
Mr Bart please, translation for us brasilians. Many want ser but van not. Please, translation for português. I have a big, big, big admiration for your job!!!