One has to admire Bart Ehrman’s patience in doing these debates. I am not sure someone like say Christopher Hitchens, would have put up with the arguments Dr. Licona presented here. I can very easily imagine Hitchens calling him out as a fraud (or worse) to his face. Dr. Licona’s whole presentation and his arguments really make a mockery of historical and even logical analysis. He is blatantly disingenuous, he distorts facts, and he intertwines empirical scrutiny with Christian theology - all while saying he is not doing so. It is revolting. His performance is a treatise on how to lie, distort the facts, all while appearing to be erudite and professorial. No, Hitchens would not have put up with this fraud - which probably explains why Dr. Ehrman is invited to debate in places like the Southern Evangelical Seminary. He treats Dr. Licona with the respect normally reserved for those who are not blatant frauds. What I am not really sure about is if this is a good thing or not. Is Dr. Ehrman inadvertently helping the fraudulent Dr. Licona - and others in the Seminary who aspire to be religious frauds - to refine their skills? Skills, I would add, that will come handy when these guys go out in a campaign to convert the ignorant? Or does Dr. Ehrman really believes he is advancing the noble cause of history by engaging in scholarly debate with disingenuous frauds that are only taken seriously within the confines of the fanatic religious South? I think the fact that Dr. Erhman comes from the evangelical tradition skews his feelings on engaging with the likes of Dr. Licona, even when the debate is really a charade. Or maybe, just maybe he thinks those who are honest to themselves will see the gaping holes in logic and historicity and perhaps come around to reason? We can hope.

As a university student in my seventies I recognize the quality of this debate and am impressed more by logic than by faith. I thank both participants, and have learned a great deal. As an atheist since adulthood, I think we have no clear evidence that any supernatural power is real. We are stuck with our daily experiences, and this is sufficient to make my life fulfilling. Thank you to all responsible for this video.

I love the passion of Prof. Ehrman!! He is a great man! Thank you, sir, for your easy to understand history lessons which I really needed!

@lachezar43

10 жыл бұрын

That is an interesting statement. Why do you think so? :)

At least Ehrman has the guts to let the people write down here whatever their opinions are .... Lane Craig et als dont . That is very telling to point out who is pursuing true science, and who blatant and empty rhetoric for gullible minds.

As a physicist I feel insulted by the claim that science is based on nondetectable phenomenons. Of course, not all theories have been empirically proven, but science community constantly works to that end, proving and disproving different theories. Religion is making assumptions which will never be possible to verify. It's a huge difference.

Licona has no right to call himself a historian

Mike Licona is an amazing dancer!

Licona was knocked out at the 40:11 minute. The debate should not have continued after that moment.

Mike Licona lots of people wake up from coma all the time without prayers . poor proof for the resurrection and that's irrelevant to why there's discrepancies in the gospels

Three indisputable facts? Damn, I was smelling blood in the water when Licona kept pounding down that argument. I can't believe he doubled-down even after being shown his error.

@AmericanWithTheTruth

9 жыл бұрын

I know right... Bart apparently forgot how to count past one.

Bart is the man.

@Matthias53787

7 жыл бұрын

Bart -- nothing against him -- is uninformed. Even though he's a professor of this stuff, his thinking is flawed and he doesn't know basic facts about the New Testament. So -- again, nothing against him -- but no, he is not the man. He is confused and wrong. But if you don't want to accept what I'm saying, then how about this -- you pick one of his arguments and I'll show you how it breaks down. Pick one -- even his strongest argument.

@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543

4 жыл бұрын

@@Matthias53787 ok the bible contradicts itself and crucifiction is baseless.

@hmdchy

4 жыл бұрын

@@Matthias53787 your comment made me feel sorry for you.

Licona is NOT a historian, definitely not a scientist, but a theologian trying to muddy general historical facts to please an audience of evangelical Christians. Clearly does not understand logical thinking. I have not read work by either. Let's not confuse logic and facts with faith. A question to the audience, do you believe only in the "miracles" of Jesus or all "miracles" of antiquity?

Bart will always be my hero!

Bart Erhman destroys another one.

@18josiahboi

7 жыл бұрын

are you sure about that? coz i beg to differ

@ronmc4554

7 жыл бұрын

yep, i see this as another victory by bart

@ronmc4554

7 жыл бұрын

I see it that way

@ronmc4554

7 жыл бұрын

Blah blah blah, keep believing in your fairy tale god.

@TariqTheTutor

7 жыл бұрын

they ended up kicking this one out of Christianity recently

Mike brought a knife to a gun fight

@nathanmckenzie904

4 жыл бұрын

A plastic knife at that

Thank you for uploading this sir. I just added it to a playlist. I will be enjoying the debate tonight!

Lol at 49.50 when he compares the possibility of an external agent helping Jesus to walk on water to him holding his son up by the side of the pool so he could walk on water.

Licona was literally executed ....

@stiffknee167

7 жыл бұрын

Agnes Philomena Jesus hate Gentile! He was only for Israel!

i´m at a loss why in the world anybody would try to defend the position that jesus was raised from the dead as a historical fact. i went to university here in europe (i.e.germany) and the thought of even introducing such a premise would be dismissed as utterly laughable in any given department for historical studies.

@22dab95

9 жыл бұрын

Conrad Coriolanus Shamanism was a form of healing that many people find silly today, even though many doctors have admitted shamans have powers than doctors do not have, and vice versa. Just because a university says something is laughable is more of a reflection of today's mentality and it certainly does not institute legitimacy. That being said, Jesus' crucifixion is a historical fact. Islam denies it. and some atheists refuse to even acknowledge Jesus' existence. Defending a resurrection is a more complex matter because it involves the supernatural and today's view on materialism is in contrast with this notion. But what you can think about is, all the eye witness testimonies, and creeds that predate the gospels. You can watch Licona's debate vs Ally for more information regarding this.

@CORIOLANVS

9 жыл бұрын

22dab95 point taken, i would not contradict that modern science is neither at the pinnacle of knowledge nor always open minded towards unpopular/niche/alternative views. it is the very essence of science though to disregard the multitude of subjective views no matter how justified but acclaim an objective standpoint. plausibility being one of them. the premise of presenting the supernatural by its definition would be the most unlikely therefore the very least presentable point of argument for obvious reasons in an attempt to debate.

@22dab95

9 жыл бұрын

Conrad Coriolanus The supernatural being unlikely, is the product of the modern world's view on materialism. And all the information we have that supports the case for a supernatural or metaphysical being, will be excluded from the universities because it would put materialism into question, and this is a price that today's scientists and philosophers do not want to pay. Please examine the following: Interesting information from physicist Paul Davies: At the so-called Planck time (which is the earliest moment at which the concept of time and space have meaning), the balance between the universe's expansion and contraction, had to be so specific, with a margin of error so small, that it would be the equivalent of shooting a square inch target 20 billion light-years away. (God and New Physics, 179). Now I will add, we are either absurdly lucky, to a massively irrational degree, or a higher power had a hand in the world. Take the physical universe as you see it. However you slice it down to its minutest form, the fact of the matter is, you end up with a physical entity/quantity that does not have the reason for its existence in itself. Ultimately, the physical universe has to find its explanation for its origin outside of itself, which means the first cause must have been non-physical. Let's just examine the human enzyme. The chance of the human enzyme coming together the way we are told by science, has a chance of 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000. That's more than the number of atoms in this universe. These calculations are provided by Vikram Singh. He is a professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff in Wales.

@themetsfan861

9 жыл бұрын

Conrad Coriolanus German NT scholars have been historically extremely skeptical. See Schweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus as well as Wrede's work on the Messianic Secret in Mark (the name currently escapes me). As for the resurrection as a historical fact, as I mention above, I have little tolerance for people who try to simply frame it that way. The resurrection (or lack thereof) revolves around both history and philosophy. You need to argue that miracles can or can't happen, as well as presenting a historical argument.

@CORIOLANVS

9 жыл бұрын

themetsfan861 One has to definitely argue about resurrection in theology, philosophy BUT not in a historical field of study. that is a matter of faith not science. for historical studies you are limited to the purely materialist way of thinking, scientifically observable events. i´m not going to argue the validity of any particular religious or metaphysical miracle or oddity because that is another subject. neither is it a interdisciplinary matter in that case. these sorts of intermingling personal priorities with factual evidence have gotten us into the dark ages. eras of superstition, witchburning, plague, and fanaticism. and please do not get me wrong i do very much believe in God and a soul, but it is not for me to argue in a field of study that is by its very definition and method of scientific observations limited to the material sphere. neither do i see the merit to put God into these fields of study nor am i enough of a zealot to see my personal beliefs attacked that way.

If exactly the same things Licona was describing, happened TODAY, the resurrection hypothesis will not be "far superior" than legend, mass delusion, conspiracy fabrication, or other natural explanations. Yet, we are asked to believe that if the same happened in ancient times, a resurrection is the most plausible answer... somehow.

OK, When Licona stoops to ad hominem attacks he destroys his own arguments (as feeble as those are).

How can Licona use the titanic as an example? The witnesses at the scene of the sinking ship were regular beings. However, we are told the Gospel writers are inspired by God and I am assuming they're filled with the Holy Spirit as they were writing their material. This does not strike me to be a sane argument let alone a scholarly one Mr. Licona!

@jonahconner1111

10 жыл бұрын

Exactly, if it is inerrant and inspired by God, why would there be discrepancies in the first place? By admitting they are there, aren't they denying the divine nature of the gospels?

@brotherzed7942

10 жыл бұрын

I am just curious mike how reliable is eyewitness testimony in general? How do we even know that the historical Jesus was on the cross? When you try to use history to "prove" the resurrection its illogical. All you have are stories about people seeing visions. You don't know if they really saw visions. People see visions of Aliens, Dead people, flying unicorns, this isn't proof - people could just be lying or seeing things. You don't even know if the supernatural exists and if it favors christianity and not some other religion. How does Craig Keener know that the supernatural favors christianity and not buddhism. Buddhist do exorcism and have miraculous healing. How do you know that devils weren't deceiving people. How do you explain other religion's claims like Buddhist, hindu, islam, scientology etc. As deuteronomy 13-1:4 from the Hebrew Bible - miracles are not a sign of proof. The only reason you have "faith" is 4 reasons: 1) New testament is authentic and 100% truthful and reliable - You don't have the original "inspired" wording. And how do you demonstrate someone is inspired. If you can't demonstrate the bible is infallible/inerrant and authentic, then why do you trust it? 2) Hebrew Bible "prophecizes" the christian concept of messiah/triune yahweh. Both are untrue. It's up to interpretation and even majority of christian scholars hold to the view that isaiah 53 refers to Israel. However, no serious person holds to the view that hebrew bible teaches the christian concept of messiah or triune godhead. 3) Your inference to best hypothesis which you copied from gary habermas and william lane craig is a joke. These historical "facts"... Lol these facts are just stories. Can you prove these actually occurred - no you always have inherent doubt and leaves you to have faith. 4) You grew up as a christian and you want to believe christianity is real. So these stories you read in the bible you take literally true. Let me ask were the saints in matthew 27 resurrection real or apocrophyal imagery?

@bowrudder899

10 жыл бұрын

william wilson, if there were no discrepancies, you would say it was redacted or that the authors were in cahoots. But it is clear that 1) they were written independently, and 2) no one redacted them to make them all agree, as is commonly claimed by those who haven't thought the topic through. Paradoxically, discrepancies actually add to the texts' credibility.

What is the problem of saying I believe it happened but I can't prove it? Why do people get so antsy about that? Just admit it and go on believing. If your beliefs are so shaky they need proof that is your problem not historian's

I don't know how I never found you before, the kinds of evidences you listed at first are exactly how Muslims collect the narrations of the prophet ( almost same criteria ), it is like I was attending a Science of Hadeeth lecture!!!! I am Muslim and you have my biggest respect for how intellectual you are, I feel you just want to know the truth when I listen to you. Also you are very polite unlike other Atheists (not all of them tho ) which is awesome.

This was a great debate! Thanks Mr. Ehrman :-)

Also when he's explaining APPENDICITIS and trying to compare the MEDICAL method to HISTORICAL method... You can't compare the two, there are different steps that are take.... Mike Licona has no idea what he's talking about..

Mike Licona begins with the statement that he is biased when he says that a wrong decision may be for eternity. That is the ultimate expression of fear. His reasoning is clouded by this, he tries to justify it subconciously with his prospect of eternal life and bliss. On top of that he explains reasoning by upbringing and traditions and many factors. That is not reasoning but opposing reason.

@Shyeena

9 жыл бұрын

Fear is a major issue for all Christians. The doctrine of eternal hell for the unbeliever is used to keep anyone from questioning "god". Although a close examination of Jesus own words does not echo the doctrine. Jesus stressed to follow his teachings. Paul was a Greco-Roman. If you research the environment of the day; Christians were not good subjects for the empire. It's my opinion that the strict doctrine was a deliberate political-religious move by Paul; today we would call him a paid state agent. Imo I also believe this to be the case with Constantine who merged religion and government. Kind of like "we can't beat them so we best join them". Again there is evidence that the Gnostic Christians fought this new super power claiming foul play. If the Gnostics didn't have something of value; WHT did the Roman Empire declare war on them and destroy all writings. Christianity has a bloody and murderous past- worse than any other religion. Although it's highly probable and scholars agree that Jesus lived and was a great spiritual figure- I do believe he has an unknown impact on humanity because Jesus is present and held in secret regard behind closed doors by certain unsavory groups. And why the deliberate destruction and falsifying of the history? I cant let go of the search for the "wth they are hiding"? I am a second guess-leave no stone UNturned kind of mind . For an excellent course on the culture during biblical times, go to yt channel Yale University. Free education from the best.

@hellmouthisnogod8492

9 жыл бұрын

Christianity has this bloody past, but it is not the religion with the bloodiest past. They all are still competing unless defeated by more murderous religions or just by people who realized that their leaders were the worst possible solution to their problems. Today they are in most parts of the world. The existence of one single person "THE JESUS" is what I doubt. I think the many contradicting stories, part of which may even have a true kernel, make it possible that the biblical Jesus is a compound figure of several rebels, "gurus" and jewish sectirians like the Nazarenes added to the miracles done by Osiris (he raised Lazarus and was torn to pieces and resurrected himself), Dionisus (died, resurrected, turned water into wine), and many more. At that time most people believed in many Gods existing but none being the only one, so they had easy access to all myths.

@Shyeena

9 жыл бұрын

Hellmouth Isnogod I agree with near everything you said but it's been a hard search to find any war or group that has a bloodied past than the Church, i.e. Christianity. Seems I constantly trip over the Church in every war I've researched- including Fascist Mussolini whom the pope gave his blessing for his campaigns. Why? Because the pope saw the destruction of countries as a grand opportunity to send 8n missionaries for relief and give them hope in Jesus Christ. Ethiopia was one such prize the church scrapped off the land. This includes Hitler- who wasn't so far removed from the Vatican. One must look for books written in the 1800's- at estate and book sales where they haven't been digitized and edited. Authors were calling the Pope the Beast way back- for his relationships with unsavory war mongers. Political-fascist-eccleeseastical seems to be the recipe. Just my findings.

@hellmouthisnogod8492

9 жыл бұрын

just now superstition killed the granddaughter of Morgan Freeman. Not only christianism, but the idiotic belief in supernatural beings which are connected to religions kill people.

@jesussaves9192

8 жыл бұрын

+Shieena Living Waters people that do killing in the name of Christianity, dose not mean their Christian ,they may claim to be a Christian. Jesus Christ never taught volicence, you can't find a teaching anywhere in the new testament that says it's okay to be volition,"not one". Jesus teaches to love your neighbors and pray for those that do you wrong. to be a Christian means you follow the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus never ever ever taught volicence!

"On 10 April 2019, the first ever direct image of a black hole and its vicinity was published, following observations made by the Event Horizon Telescope in 2017 of the supermassive black hole in Messier 87's galactic centre." ... still waiting for the evidence for the resurrection ....

@nathanmckenzie904

4 жыл бұрын

And you will wait for the rest of your life, because its *probably* never going to happen

Licona: what a joke. What a clown

When Mike did his debate with Matt Dillahunty, his "EVIDENCE" was hearsay...

I like Bart Ehrmans work but I wish he wouldn't waste his time debating these dullards. Hearing him discuss, rather than debate, with other historians would be far more interesting.

Mike Licona speaks like he went to the women store to pick out his wife.

If you guys who think this was a waste of Barts time actually watched this and listened and still speak with such vitriol there's a problem with your critical thinking skills. Mike's open statement alone is enough to raise serious questions. And I think Bart would agree.

@TariqTheTutor

7 жыл бұрын

I really love your picture :) noon is an awesome letter

Wow. I've seen Mike flail before but this takes the metaphysical cake. I'd give an A for effort but this was a C minus at best. Well done Bart

1. The Christians mindset.....1+1+1=1. 2. God dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. 3. Jesus is God and the Son of God at the sametime. 4. Jesus is the word of God, and the Bible is also the word of God. 5. The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and impregnated her and God Jesus was born. 6.Yahweh and Jesus are co-equal and co-eternal, unfortunately Yahweh reduced Jesus in a womb (birth) and a tomb (death), and then raised him from the dead.

This Licona is not doing Christianity any favours. He appears confused and unintelligent.

What if Jesus really did resurrect, what evidence would you expect to find?

@Gnomefro

9 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure what evidence I'd expect, but that's not really my problem is it? The claim of Christianity is that the creator of the universe chose that particular way to save humanity and it would be a pretty poor job of doing so if the claim is inherently unbelievable due to its fantastic content - such that only the gullible and irrational could ever be saved.

@anoldgod

5 жыл бұрын

living Jesus offcourse

@naijamuslim8364

4 жыл бұрын

1) That he resurrected and has been alive on earth for the past 2000 years. 2) That all his contemporaries, both friends and foes, saw him afterwards. Not just his disciples and another unverified report from Paul.

@UnimatrixOne

4 жыл бұрын

@AnarchoRepublican but many wold say: these stories were made up or were hallucinations

honestly, Ehrman is a great speaker and an even better scholar. To say that he is the anti-Christ is perhaps a way of saying he is brilliant.

@firlas6414

7 жыл бұрын

Now you go watch "How Jesus Became God" "He even admitted..." You certainly read his book as you do with the bible, interpret explicit statements by vague unclear verses rather than vice versa. I dare you go watch: "Who Changed the Bible & Why? Diane Rehm Show" on Prof Ehrman's channel. Let's see you hear that those changes in the ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS not in your english bibles have significant impact on Christian doctrine. Of course the differences you have in your english bible are in line with Christian doctrine, if they weren't your monarch rulers and church fathers would immediately remove them.

Hahahaha Ehrman's face at 50:00 is priceless

@cruithne6021

9 жыл бұрын

+tx "Dafuq did I just hear??"

@TariqTheTutor

7 жыл бұрын

he got a headache, probably, after hearing that illogical argument.

@falsesectslikeshiaarejudeo6543

4 жыл бұрын

i think its called the antological arguement! it reminds me of the arguement if it can exist & its necessary it does.

@UnimatrixOne

4 жыл бұрын

had to laugh too

Licona consistently and either fraudulently or stupidly omits the word "claims" from Ehrman's statements that Paul *claims* to have seen Jesus (on the road to Damascus), and that the Disciples *claim* to have seen the risen Jesus. If nothing else, that alone invalidates not only Licona's argument but his claim to be a seeker of truth.

@RonJohn63

9 жыл бұрын

AnarchoRepublican What's wrong with "visions" and "something"?

@RonJohn63

9 жыл бұрын

AnarchoRepublican OK, I'm confused. "Nonsense" typically means "I think you're stupidly wrong". When commenting on this type of video, it typically means, "I'm a Christian, and you're going to hell." But you seem to think that I wasn't harsh enough on Licona. What am I missing?

@AmericanWithTheTruth

9 жыл бұрын

I think you just proved to be a seeker of ignorance with that comment...

@RonJohn63

9 жыл бұрын

Tom Brooks /you just proved to be a seeker of ignorance/ How so?

1:50:44 This is what the moderator is talking about when he says "special commentary": Bart Ehrman "The seminary had arranged that immediately after our debate faculty members from the school would get up for ten minutes each to explain to the audience why I was wrong in everything I had just said - in my absence!! Ai yai yai. I don’t know what it is about these evangelical schools, but sometimes they drive me crazy." Evangelicals act like they want to have fair and balanced debates that stand on their own merit and allow the audience to decide--uncertainty and all, but what they really want is a forum that allows for the preservation of their literally interpreted faith at all costs. It feels seedy and desperate and shows their true colors.

@UnimatrixOne

4 жыл бұрын

Most of them have to stay in their bubble, it would be too unsafe outside... :P

Pick on somebody your own size Bart - Licona is not a worthy adversary for you :)

Bart Ehrman Destroyed licona

We should remember that the "cross" mentioned was most likely the 'cross piece'. The whole cross would weight well over 200 pounds, over 250 even more likely. the Roman 'cross' may have been a large 'X' instead of the customary Celtic cross, looking like a lower case 't'. Some insist it may have been like a upper case 'T' with a mortise joint connecting the two.

Interesting that Mike Licona referenced the appendix, it's a leftover and redundant organ from our distant past, potentially fatal too. So much for biblical chronology and a perfect designer....

@jbax114

10 жыл бұрын

I don't know how Dr. Ehrman puts up with this stuff. He's obviously passionate about the truth, but banging your head against the wall like this? I hope he's been well reimbursed for his time.

@CCCBeaumont

4 жыл бұрын

Your ideas about the appendix are twenty years out of date. it is no longer considered vestigial.

Licona, like all apologists, doesn't know the difference between stories and historical facts.

Bart beat the brakes of mike...AGAIN! SMH😃

Licona goes off for 5 minutes or more on bs. He knows he's gonna get smoked so he goes for the old everybody has bias routine lmao

God is the mechanism by which Jesus was raised from the dead. Historically speaking, plausibility is entirely determinate on a mechanism. This went way over Mikes head.

Licona: "He still agrees with me on these three facts, he hasn't disputed those." Liar! Ehrman just spent 15 minutes disputing those "3 facts" which are actually only 1 fact. I have lost all respect for Licona, at least present information truthfully. Ehrman SMOKED HIM!

@AmericanWithTheTruth

9 жыл бұрын

LOL! Hey fellas over here... I think we found another one that can't count past one. (pointing)

@Briavel1

9 жыл бұрын

AnarchoRepublican 1. Why would the fact that Jesus died by crucifixion be proof that he was resurrected? The Romans crucified thousands of people and that doesn't mean they were resurrected. This "fact" is irrelevant and easily dismissed. 2. The Apostles claimed to see Jesus and 3. Paul claimed to see Jesus. Those two "facts" should be one fact: People claimed to see Jesus. Otherwise, why doesn't Licona say the 12 Apostles seeing Jesus is equivalent to "12 facts" (or 11 Apostles if you discount Matthias). They were 12 separate people after all. Why would one man's dream about Jesus be worth the same as 12 eye-witness accounts?

@AmericanWithTheTruth

9 жыл бұрын

Briavel1 People seeing Jesus and Paul seeing Jesus are two different facts because they are recorded in two different books at two different times in two different contexts. The people recorded in point 1. do not include Paul in point 2. because he was not historically there at that time. They are also recorded in two different Biblical texts. I'm surprised you guys actually seem to have this much of a problem with this issue. A grade school child could see the difference here.

@Briavel1

9 жыл бұрын

Tom Brooks Well at least you don't contest that the crucifixion is not evidence of resurrection. How you guys think that Paul's dream is evidence of Jesus coming back from the dead is beyond me. People dream about all sorts of deities, are you going to say those dreams are proof of their existence? So really, the only "fact" you guys have is the testimony of the Apostles. Even if you believe what was written actually happened, numerous studies and statistics prove the unreliability of eye witness testimony. As an evangelical, how do you explain the numerous mass visions of catholic saints (some involving thousands of people)? You don't believe in saints, so why are people seeing them? Of course, just because an ancient book said something happened doesn't mean it actually did. The writer of Matthew had a motive (remember, the first Gospel Mark doesn't mention the Apostles saw a resurrected Jesus), and that motive was to explain why their "Messiah" died, and to convince and convert as many people to their small sect as possible, so of course they would write up something as awe-inspiring as a resurrection narrative to make people believe (which wasn't an original story plot btw, resurrection is a common theme in the ancient world). Your religion was already disproved thousands of years ago. Jesus said he would return within a generation (about 100 years), and he didn't. Yet you guys have desperately clung to this ancient myth and continue to use all your strength to rationalize why it still makes sense to believe in it.

@AmericanWithTheTruth

9 жыл бұрын

Briavel1 "Your religion was already disproved thousands of years ago. Jesus said he would return within a generation (about 100 years), and he didn't. " So before I give you a very reasonable explanation for your claim of Jesus not returning in 100 years, are you going to lay down some guidelines to concede your point or do you have other stipulations? I just want to see if I'm going to waste anymore time with you on this topic.

I cant believe im hearing Licona admit that some Gospel writers might have changed some texts for theological reasons! Does this not pose an ethical question? How often was this method used or replicated throughout the New Testament to perhaps prove another point?? Maybe the peculiar I AM statement that is only found in John is an insertion? Let our imagination drift and carry us very far!

you cant prove anything supernatural or miraculous historically

I can see why Bart wants permission to re-post.

Dr. Bart won this debets absolotly .

Why do Christians think someone died for you 2000 years and took all your sins. How is that logic

Somehow I have the impression that Licona is essentially trying to dilute the discussion. 50:00 Bart about to face-palm... ;) 51:50 What? Coincidence is now a miracle? Wow, that bar has been lowered a lot...

@0danger0

8 жыл бұрын

+Harm10412 if that story at 51:50 is true, then it isnt unreasonable to believe 4 people coming out of a coma simultaneously on the same day after months each, is a miracle. you would have to empathise and see thats an extremely big coincidence dude even for a skeptic like yourself

@Harm10412

8 жыл бұрын

0danger0 Well, let me emphasize one thing: emotion or empathy is a really bad adviser when it comes to facts and numbers, or simply gauging probabilities. What would that story prove? How would it qualify as a "miracle"? What really is "a miracle"?

God is one in three The father, Jesus and the holy spirit ( the trinity). Jesus is the son of God and God at the same time, and Jesus died therefore God died, Jesus (God) was resurrected by God ( by himself). Jesus created his Mother because he is God and he is the son and God of Marry (his Mother) Madness !!! Thank you Mike for trying so hard to prove that God died.

Bart is a tough debater... Whether or not I agree or disagree with anyone, I'm glad we can talk about it and discuss it.

At 00:16:00 Mike says that Paul's vision was not a hallucination, when according to the New Testament it was the very definition of a hallucination. He saw something that others could not (even if it was caused magically by Jesus). And last of all he was seen of me also … (1 Cor. 15:8 KJV) And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7 KJV) Of course this is pedantic because, like most of their writings, it is clearly allegorical.

@ephraimhills9050

8 жыл бұрын

how come people with Paul heard a voice if it was just a personal hallucination for Paul himself.

@LughSummerson

8 жыл бұрын

Ephraim Hills A hallucination is something that one person senses that others cannot. According to the Bible, they had a shared auditory experience while Paul had a visual hallucination. To answer your question literally; how come they heard a voice? They didn't. It's fiction that was written to illustrate a philosophy.

@18josiahboi

7 жыл бұрын

Lugh Summerson that sound like a double standard. One you admit that paul saw a vision ( whether you believe it or not) according the new testament, but you turn around and deny what New Testament says about Pauls companion hearing the voice while only paul saw. which one is it? Base on what evidence do you have to say one is a hallucination and the other one is just a philosophical hallucination 🤔

No group hallucinations? :D You have many Virgin Marys to worship, my friend...

Godamnit I love Dr. Erhman's personality.

The pathetic attempts the apologists make to try and justify their presuppositions are becoming tiresome.

The gospels claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus and the best explanation is that it actually happened? Seriously? :D

@ThePettiestOfficer_Juan117

8 жыл бұрын

Jesus also claimed to be God, and that He would rise from the dead. Paul says if Jesus did not rise, Christians should be pitied above all. 1 Corinthians 15:14

@ephraimhills9050

8 жыл бұрын

over 500 people witnessed resurrected jesus.

@ramigilneas9274

8 жыл бұрын

Ephraim Hills Actually only one anonymous author who wasnt an eyewitness himself claims that there were 500 eyewitnesses. Nothing more than hearsay and not a shred of evidence. ;)

@HaecceitasQuidditas

8 жыл бұрын

You're wrong about the anonymous part at least. That information is from one of the NT documents that is most clearly not anonymous (1. Corinthians).

This was a waste of Bart's time.....

1:53:37 You have in no way shape or form demonstrated your hypothesis, and saying over and over again that you have demonstrated it does *not* mean that you actually have.

How can a resurrection not be considered _ad hoc_ as an explanation? Seriously.

@algraham7177

8 жыл бұрын

+Mattias Sollerman It depends on the worldview that you are bringing to the question. If you subscribe to philosophical naturalism and thus believe that miracles can never occur, then, of course, you would not accept the resurrection as an explanation under any circumstances. If, on the other hand, you believe that there is more to reality than merely "the natural" and that higher dimensions can act on nature to produce miracles, then the theory that an objectively real person appeared to the disciples, whom they sincerely believed to be Jesus, rather than the 'appearance' being a mass hallucination, then the resurrection is a perfectly valid explanation.

@MrCostiZz

8 жыл бұрын

+Al Gray Nonsense, truth is independent of your philosophy. The resurrection simply can not be established by evidence to justify believe….The END All the rest are mind mansturbation Theist do to mask their gullibility…to them selves

@algraham7177

8 жыл бұрын

Kostas Spiliotopoulos Likewise truth is also independent of your philosophy. In fact, the philosophy of naturalism, which is the basis of atheism, cannot even explain the concept of truth itself. How could it? The idea that mind is reducible to brain, which is nothing more than a complex chemical arrangement, is absurd as a cause of the means by which we seek to understand reality. You talk about "mind masturbation". What irony! If philosophical naturalism is true then all reason is nothing more than "mind masturbation" by definition. Reason would simply be whatever chemical reactions are taking place within the physical brain. You accuse theists of gullibility, but if you actually understood your own view of reality, and grasped its implications, then you would be ashamed of making such an accusation. Those who think that all aspects of reality can only be explained by means of matter really need an education in epistemology. Your view of reality cannot explain reason itself, never mind free will, moral responsibility, consciousness and even the basis of the scientific method, which relies on certain a priori ideas being objectively true. You can call me gullible as much as you like. I prefer evidence - proper evidence (not the kind of biased and limited view of evidence that you refer to).

@MrCostiZz

8 жыл бұрын

+Al Gray Truth is whatever works in a given environment ...Simple as that. It doesn't depend in a world view ...Maybe your world view is running through a cliff you fly ...that doesn't mean you will not fall. The first rule on making an successful experiment is ....Be as neutral to the experiment as possible....NOT as you suggest ...Bring your world view to the experiment. You say: (whom they sincerely believed to be Jesus, rather than the 'appearance' being a mass hallucination, then the resurrection is a perfectly valid explanation.) Its exactly as if you said: (Kids ho believe in Santa ...Are perfectly valid to assume Gifts down of the Christmas tree are from Santa) NO they are NOT.

@algraham7177

8 жыл бұрын

Kostas Spiliotopoulos "Truth is whatever works in a given environment ...Simple as that." Yeah, 'simple' is exactly the word to describe this comment (although 'simplistic' would be slightly more accurate). The pragmatic and utilitarian view of knowledge can easily be debunked. Lies work, that is why people lie. Errors produce effects and therefore can 'work'. Furthermore, the entire pragmatic scientific method can only function on the basis of certain truths, which have to be accepted as 'givens'. They cannot be empirically tested. One of these ideas is the universality and consistency of the laws of physics. But let's suppose you are right. OK. So belief in God and belief in miracles WORKS for billions of people. Ergo... it is true. Case closed!

At 50:00 what if God exists and wanted to raise Jesus from the dead? What if my grandfather was a wizard and wanted me to have magical wings that I could use at night when nobody looks at me? What if coma patients, in coma for different length of time, under intensive care wake up at the same time: what is more likely: coincidence or the prayers? How come that the trick does not work more often? How come that of all millions of poor souls that gets to Fatima to be cured, those who claim to be cured are can be counted with your hands? How many coma patient are still in coma or croaked despite of all the prayers ? And incidentally random occurrence are in fact commonplace: hey, some people has even won the lottery twice: miracle!? ...... Well maybe ... not.

@ianrwood21

9 жыл бұрын

Tom Brooks What planet are you on? Ever heard that science is based on evidence?

@AmericanWithTheTruth

9 жыл бұрын

ianrwood21 Yeah! Sure! Ever heard of evolution being supported by said evidence? Yeah me neither! Interesting aye?

@ianrwood21

9 жыл бұрын

Tom Brooks Except for one little fact - science is based on evidence.

@AmericanWithTheTruth

9 жыл бұрын

ianrwood21 Except another little fact - there is no evidence for evolution therefore evolution is not science.

@AmericanWithTheTruth

9 жыл бұрын

AnarchoRepublican It's not the amber itself or the objects contained in the amber that I question. It's the assumptions that are carried into assuming the amber is actually 100,000s of years old in the first place. Curious have you read up on the 3 assumption rules radiometric dating that are assumed by evolutionists? 1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. 2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. 3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed. These of course apply to objects contained within amber as well. Ref: answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/does-radiometric-dating-prove-the-earth-is-old/ Additional amber ref and dating: www.icr.org/article/2824/268

Objectively speaking, the resurrection was highly improbable. Objectively speaking, there are more than six billion printed books that said it happened in existence more than 1,980 years after the disputed fact. Objectively speaking, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead hasn't changed for more than 1,980 years. What's the probability of those two things happening if Jesus did not rise from the dead?

I’m not sure why Ehrman grants that he has to explain the apostles seeing Jesus-though he’s certainly right that if we assume that fact, there are a dozen more likely explanations than resurrection. But there are even more if all we have to explain is *stories about the resurrection circulating decades later*, ranging from the banal “someone just made that part up” to the natural embellishment that occurs as stories are repeated verbally. (“After his death, Jesus appeared to one of the disciples in a dream” becomes “appeared to one of the disciples” becomes “appeared to the disciples.”).

Is shouting supposed to make something true?

@LughSummerson

8 жыл бұрын

It's a presentation technique used by many lecturers because it's difficult to concentrate on a long speech given without passion or emphases.

@mattd624

8 жыл бұрын

Seriously!

@monkeypolice3048

5 жыл бұрын

I dun no, have you gone to church on Sunday to listen to a preacher?

Question: has anyone read Mike Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus? I heard it's very well written. I am looking for some must-read books about Jesus besides Ehrman's work. I already have Jesus, Interrupted ready for when I finish my current book.

@zenmonsters

10 жыл бұрын

I would look up Eilene Pagels and John Dominic Crossan. Two of my other fav authors/speakers on Jesus. Morton Smith also had some very interesting theories. If you like controversy, check out anything by The Jesus Seminar.

@ashwinmarapengopie8197

10 жыл бұрын

john robert mack Just replying with my new account here...I still have to get my hands on a book by Crossan. Haven't read any of his work yet. I also have The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert Price stored on my bookshelf. I really love his expertise, even though I don't agree with some of his conclusions. I wil soon check Richard Carrier's new book on Jesus as well. Thanks for the advice though!

Magic also has explanatory scope and explanatory power. Just like "God", magic is not plausible. It's not falsifiable. Believe whatever the heck you want to believe, but quit trying to prove it.

@SouthGallaecian

9 жыл бұрын

Well, just because it is not falsifiable, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Obviously, it doesn't mean it exists, either. It only means you can't prove its existence scientifically. Maybe part of reality is unmeasurable and unobservable. We can never be sure we know all reality, only that what we measure, observe and deduce (from those measurements and observations) is real.

@Gnomefro

9 жыл бұрын

Rui Afonso _"It only means you can't prove its existence scientifically."_ Not really. It also means that it's irrational to believe it exists because it's only evidence that lets us restrict the vast space of the logically possible to the probable. Without evidence, no existential claim is even remotely plausible and the "maybes" you are talking about really aren't interesting. Rational people should not believe them and should go with the hypotheses there is evidence for.(But one could potentially use such baseless hypotheses as a basis for random stabs in the dark at possible new knowledge about reality. I doubt "magic" is a good candidate for such stabs though) _"Maybe part of reality is unmeasurable and unobservable."_ Maybe it is - if so, it's indistinguishable from the nonexistent and nobody should care about it.

@SouthGallaecian

9 жыл бұрын

Apart from the "and nobody should care about it", that was a very interesting answer. I'll have to think about it.

@SouthGallaecian

9 жыл бұрын

***** Well, enlighten me, oh rude one.

Mike, you are simply brilliant. I did not think about you as a good debater before but now I do. Thank you

Simply put - Licona is disingenuous and really weak - but I was especially disappointed with his misrepresentations of Ehrman. I write as a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.

@Matthias53787

7 жыл бұрын

Care to explain?

@simpleman951

6 жыл бұрын

Matthias Dailey He won't explain because he hasn't done any studying to make a respectable argument for such ridiculous statement. Mike Licona did an excellent job.

Has Mike never had the flu? Vomiting is totally common in the flu.

Just the fact that we have debates over the Resurrection of Jesus proves that a personel God probably does not exist.

At least this is a civilized debate and in our part of the world we can disagree and discuss and learn. Today 12 people were killed in Paris for critizising islam and their prophet. They want to take these liberties we have away and lead us back to the midevil ages - back to the darkness and foggy past. We have to push back.

@FredTusing

9 жыл бұрын

Bjarne Søegaard Political Islam caused the dark ages to begin with and will never stop seeking that until they conquer the whole earth! They are lead by Satan and these attacks makes that self evident.

@FredTusing

9 жыл бұрын

***** Yea that's why I have my name for everyone to see when I call *"Islam"* Satanic! Yea, I'm really shaking in my boots.

@bjarnesegaard5701

9 жыл бұрын

***** I don't think you understand what Anarcho Republican was writing. He simply says that Islam should not have special privileges in the western societies but be able to be criticized as Christianity has been.

@FredTusing

9 жыл бұрын

***** Why are you too chicken to reveal your full name? Are you afraid of the Big Bad Wolf too? =)

@FredTusing

9 жыл бұрын

AnarchoRepublican did you watch that video from the link in my last post to you? If, so tell me what you think. ***** I ɔɥǝɔʞǝp nupǝɹ ɯʎ qǝp ɐup ʇɥǝ ʍolɟ [ɔopǝ ɟoɹ ɯnslᴉɯs] ʍɐs uoʇ ʇɥǝɹǝ ɯɐʎqǝ ʎon ɔɐu sǝǝ ɥᴉs [Sɐʇɐu] dlɐu ᴉu ʇɥǝ ʌᴉpǝo˙ Iɟ ʎonɹ ɔɐu ɥɐuplǝ ᴉʇ ʎon ɯᴉƃɥʇ ʍɐuʇ ʇo ʍɐʇɔɥ ᴉʇ˙ ˥O˥ :-) ⅄on ɥɐʌǝ ʎǝʇ ʇo ɔɹᴉʇᴉɔᴉzǝ Ԁolᴉʇᴉɔɐl Islɐɯ˙

Mike Licona seems to be holding on to desperate faith, though I feel he may be somewhat of a closet de-convert. One can tell that he appears to still be struggling with the notions of faith, especially around the miracle question -in the Q&A. To be honest, his assertions that he has resolved the internal conflict may be due to his need of resolving cognitive dissonance, instead of arriving at a resolution of knowledge (i.e. his copout defense, which doesn't pass its own criteria).

I’d have to say, this was a weak performance by Licona. Man, you can’t just keep restating your opening speech for half the rebuttal time and think that’s effective. We already heard it!! Plus Bart throws some real logical daggers at Licona which pretty much sunk him. btw- I’m a huge apologist Christian.

Hello dr Ehrman, I want to point that Paul wrote about resurrection of Jesus in Corinthians as *SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION NOT PHYSICALLY* Corinthians 15: 35 I think it was very important point should have been mentioned.

Mike does not EXPLAIN HOW any of these things happened other than "it says".or that.....god did it......wha????

@cliffordwilson4271

10 жыл бұрын

How do you explain how a resurrection occurs, if we knew that it'd be the holy grail of medicine.

@PapaDougly

9 жыл бұрын

well then I guess that answers the resurrection reality for you doesnt it?

did this guy mike won any debate. he's so lost that he said i don't have to believe in old testament lolol

50:22 God raises jesus from the death ! Hello is not Jesus himself God ?! Christianity is insane manner of thinking. If you wanna be christian, you can ,but you have through your brain.

I think all of the debates for Jesus Resurrection usually missed the point. We have to emphasize for what actually is the dispute? Understanding this point is critical for this dispute and than will go much clear. Now what I mean? All scholars atheists and believers are agree without doubt in one moment: Very early (even one year after the crucifixion) Peter, James and later (~15 years) Paul plus other early Christians was absolutely sincerely convinced that Jesus rise from the death. AGAIN, no doubt this is the case. However (and this is important to understand) the FACT that Peter, James and Paul plus others was absolutely sincerely convinced that resurrection occurs, is exposed from the believers as PROVE for the resurrection. ACTUALLY IT IS NOT PROVE. and this is the position of the non-believers and here Bart's view. So many different scenarios and variants could happened in order this early Christians absolutely sincerely to believe in the Resurrection AND IN FACT the Resurrection not to be the case, that simply to add the this as PROVE IS NOT CORRECT. You can here very frequently the sentence from the pastors and here from MIKE like this one: "After analyzing all the data we conclude that the most probable explanation is that actually Jesus for sure rise from the death". I would say that is simply NOT TRUE!!! You can come with many more absolutely real and possible variant except the Resurrection, that this kind of notion is NOT TRUE. THE reality is that: the Christian believers, believes in the Resurrection, BECAUSE THEY WONT TO BELIEVE in that, IT FITS WELL WITH THE PAUL's DOCTRINE for salvation and also of course, BECAUSE we don't know which of those many scenarios actually happened and most likely we will never know.

Both debaters are correct on different issues. # 1. Belief in the resurrection is based on a cumulative case so in this regard, Bart is correct in that it is theological. #2. Can theological conclusion be based historical facts? Clearly something happened. IF Jesus was crucified and the body is missing, THEN something happened. Is this "evidence" for resurrection? If you funnel it through a cumulative case argument which is theologically based then you could make the argument. Is it proof? It depends on what a person requires for such proof. Clearly it is not falsifiable so you can't say it is proof to a skeptic who ignores cumulative case argument and theological perspective. If a historian claims that there can be no evidence for "miracles" then there can be no such proof to the historian. Proof not only requires "honesty" by the beholder of evidence but it also requires the allowance of evidence for the supernatural. If proof and evidence is restricted to the falsifiable and to the alleged "probability" of natural explanation, then the beholder of such data (evidence) misses out IF in fact a miracle did indeed occur. It's not a wise thing to miss out IF there are severe consequences for missing out (reducing this to Pascal's Wager, however, "misses out" on a cumulative case argument and alleged evidence (whether circumstantial or otherwise) for such belief that could change your eternity - were you to consider MORE than just Pascal's Wager). Question everything.

@user-uy6uc5ey5q

10 жыл бұрын

The major flaw in your argument in allowing supernatural explanations into modern history is that you have to accept them all, in order to remain consistent. To dismiss all other religious claims in ancient history but to allow christian ones is of course to fall into the logical fallacy of special pleading. I take it you don't believe that Julius Caesar as well being a real person, also had divine powers and was descended from the goddess Venus via legendary Trojan prince Aeneas. If so, you are rejecting supernatural explanations which exist in all the ancient roman histories from which his modern historical biography is sourced from. All Prof Ehrman is doing is applying the same standards against Christian history that is applied against other ancient accounts.

@Breckmin

10 жыл бұрын

"is that you have to accept them all, in order to remain consistent." No you don't....that is foolishness. There is no cumulative case argument for Greek mythology. It is through cumulative case argument that separates the God of Abraham (and therefore Islam, Judaism, Christianity) from all mythologies. Also, I can give you all sorts of alleged evidences (circumstantial as they may be) for the resurrection of Jesus Christ...where is your evidence for Caeser's divine powers? Where is your argument for the goddess Venus? The reality is that atheists and agnostics often miss this very "basic" difference - because they are unaware of systematic theology and how evidential apologists have a cumulative case argument for the God of Abraham. All Bart is doing is pointing to confusion and failing to address the order of "how we know" that the God of Abraham is quite different from these other pagan mythologies. Question everything.... especially cumulative case argument.

@user-uy6uc5ey5q

10 жыл бұрын

Systematic theology is still theology. It is special pleading to say your concept is superior to another. Modern history doesn't and shouldn't allow theological reasoning to enter into analysis of events of the past. Napoleon believed he won battles against the obvious odds because he was a superior moral force which had been preordained by fate/god (he had a complicated theological concept) to win them. Do any reputable history of the period use this concept in explaining his victories? Of course not. Any non explainable reason for his victories get put down to that old standby , luck. Even if I were to accept you argument above, I bet you don't accept Islamic views of the history of the early christian period? It has a much right to the God of Abraham cumulative case argument as you do. Bart is entirely correct in excluding theological rationalizations from calculating the probability of an historical event. To do otherwise is to step outside history and enter religion.

@Breckmin

10 жыл бұрын

I don't believe victories in war are ever the result of luck.

@nofascistideologies8742

10 жыл бұрын

Breckmin Please explain your "cumulative case argument". As far as I can tell, there is no difference between mythology and Islam, Judaism, and Christianity except that the mythologies no longer have adherents.

This guy Licona is a disgusting form of a pre-suppositionalist. Bart suggested that a good historian be removed from the outcome of any claim he tries to prove. Licona came back in one of his rebuttals saying that he basically really thought the matter over and despite his personal religious beliefs that he is really working in the best interests of history. And then one sentence later accused bart, a previous Christian, of being the one who is really biased in his beliefs. This guy is disgusting. He is absolutely drowning in his own personal conviction and has no objectivity at all. It is a waste of time to listen to anything he says.

Why is it believers of the bible cannot comprehend that if a story teller (scribe) creates the outline of a story that is based on hearsay, whether the story is on a real person or not, that it is easy to create a more complex story by simply adding embellishments to give your story more substance, especially if you are trying to convince people that your story is true. This is even easier to do when working with real history if you are creating your stories hundreds of years after this person real or not was meant to have died. A good example would be the current TV show "Vikings" which is loosely based on some real historical figures but with known myth and script writer stories woven around them that are not historically correct or possible. Now! step back to a time when the printing press had not been invented and most of the population of the world didn't read or write then you increase the problem of knowing anything that may be either historical or true. Now consider that all copies of these stories were hand copied over and over again by different scribes, then also add translations of these hand written documents into other languages where there are phases and words that translate directly and the writer has to make something up to cover this problem when trying to compare them to the original language and you end up with just a story. Now compile a book with myths and know stories than date back to 1700 BC to 500 BC that make no sense... Ladies and Gentlemen I present the Bible's. Belief in a God is a personal thing. What religion does is dictate how you should see "Your" God. God does not need religion or religious doctrine or the billions of dollars taken from the believers of that doctrine to make itself known or understood. It is God!

@Matthias53787

7 жыл бұрын

What if a scribe or author is simply interviewing the witnesses and compiling a book on the events?

So Licona quotes scripture to support his claim? Tacitus & Josephus not contemporary. Loads of paople called Jesus(Jeshua) I could destroy his (evidence?)

Yeshua was a common name. Now days we don't say Jerry from Ohio because there are billions of people yet many believers assume the bible was written in 16th century english and/or no mistakes in translation ever happened on accounts of popular rumors over 30 years 1,980 years ago.

A Forrest Gump joke in 2009?

I think you should sit(bound and gagged) a Christian apologist in front of a hardcore Scientologist or mormon when they ask why non-believers don't believe their claims.

This was a good debate.

He's making an error when ascribing your beliefs regarding walking on water, at least to my impression. You're merely making the provisio of simple enumeration that the observations we've made of reality as we know it indicate that it's not possible to walk on lukewarm water and that if someone claims to do so, some other explanation is more likely. Edit: also, claiming "I was x, now I'm y" isn't a red herring, it's the genetic fallacy

@gamerknown

3 жыл бұрын

Looks great for 48 there though!

@gamerknown

3 жыл бұрын

Interestingly enough, the power of resurrection wasn't limited to Jesus in Orthodox Christianity, they held saint zenobius could do it too

1:10:20 Very WIlliam Lane Craig of you.

Mike did a very poor job, while Bart did not come up with any points that can not easily be explained. I was disappointed with both speakers hoping for much more in depth difficult questions rather than these superficial statements.

Every time i watch a new video of bart it reminds me how islam shows the tue stories of jesus pbuh

@vejeke

3 жыл бұрын

Bart Ehrman is an apostate who, in his effort to seek the truth no matter what, lost faith in his religion. Now he identifies himself as an agnostic atheist. What does Islam say about those who abandon it?

@readmorebooks8008

3 жыл бұрын

His views about the historical Jesus are not compatible with mainstream Muslim belief.

Titanic matches "the Illusion of memory" from the "invisible gorilla", bad example. It's not the memory of titanic passengers in this case, but memory of Mexicans or Russians who wrote about titanic 20 years later.

one more thing, i don't know whether he believes in historical record from Thallus that there was darkness on crucificxion day of Jesus. does he accept that as a historical fact? i thinks so it is written by a historian. many people may think that was a solar eclips. however do you know that solar eclips cannot occur during full moon? so there is no scientific explanation what caused the darkness. which means we don't have any explanation what caused it or even what could cause it. so we should be regarded as a miracle. but probably limited knowledge of a historian cause no trouble of accepting it as a historical fact. my point is historian should not concerned about the cause and they can be biased depend on their knowledge.

1:38:05 What is that so funny? Does anyone know? Please.

I really appreciate Michael Licona. In the "evidences" he presented for the resurrection he didn't include any Joseph of Arimathea nonsense, dramatically hindering his case. BTW, I'm an atheist.

@SouthGallaecian

9 жыл бұрын

The appendicitis comparison is utterly ridiculous. He knows better, but must be repressing the truth inside of him. Such a shame

@SouthGallaecian

9 жыл бұрын

AnarchoRepublican You'll have to ask Ehrman, I have no idea...

@SouthGallaecian

9 жыл бұрын

My opinion is that the comparison is ridiculous because diagnosing a common illness based on standard symptoms is completely different from concluding that what was a one-off event in the entire history of mankind occurred based on rumours (Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.) and just-so-stories (the Gospels). These are two different universes, there's no possible honest comparison. I stand by what I said previously.

@Gnomefro

9 жыл бұрын

AnarchoRepublican _"..the only thing Ehrman seem determined to oppose was that there was actually 3 separate facts, he demanded there is only 1...wonder why Ehrman was so intent on proving the numbers ???"_ Obviously to reveal that Licona was trying to cash in chips he didn't actually have and that the one remaining "fact" was inherently religious in nature.