Bart Ehrman Responds to William Lane Craig on the Resurrection 

I was excited to see that William Lane Craig has responded to Bart Ehrman's comments in this podcast in an hour-long video you can watch here: ru-vid.comrv7mzTN0xpY?feature=share This clip is taken from Within Reason #35 with Bart Ehrman, available in full here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2STiabRV8TE.html

Elvis Presley died and many, many people claim to have seen him since

One guy saying 500 people saw something is exactly equal to one guy saying he saw something.

I am no Christian so I don't have a horse in the race, but it surprises me that he didn't bring up the fact, that one of the only physical evidences of a crucifixion we have at all, is a nail in a heel bone found in a TOMB in what is now Israel from around the time Jesus supposedly lived. So apparently at least one person was burried there after he was crucified, which means that there is very good reason to believe that he wasn't the only one.

It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled - Mark Twain

I’m from Nigeria, and last night, my Uncle was talking about dead bodies who get possessed by spirits and then move to another town to start a new family until someone living in that town recognizes them, and then they disappear to another city to repeat the cycle. As an atheist I find this laughable, but the man and many others believe this nonsense. So I think when Alex talks about a man walking in, touching and interacting with people after death, it’s not really something new to my hearing.. we hear this nonsense all the time.

Such a great discussion. Alex you do a brilliant job of taking the positive case.

One of the best Devil's Advocate you could have asked for. No strawmaning the position and letting the arguments speak for themselves. Brilliant

I was a bit disappointed with the repeated “groups of people” seeing the resurrected Jesus. There are claims that groups of people saw him. Along with claims of all sorts of zombies wondering about. But no one from those groups of people wrote it down? Seems like something that would leave more of an impression on a community.

Even though I’m a believer, I absolutely appreciate this engaging discussion. Any believer or non-believer should engage this video or others like it. One should always allow themselves to be challenged.

When I re-read the gospels I was surprised with how simple Mark's account was. It's so brief and I didn't get any idea from it that Pilate was somehow enthralled by Jesus like he was in John

Here's the TLDR version for the Resurrection being a legend. 1. Paul - no evidence of a Resurrected Jesus that remained on the earth or had his formerly dead corpse touched after revivification. Uses a "revelation" (Gal. 1:16) as an "appearance" in 1 Cor 15:8 without distinguishing it from the others in 1 Cor 15:5-7. 2. Mark - no evidence a resurrection _narrative_ existed yet since the original ended at Mk. 16:8. 3. Matthew - appearance in Galilee which some doubt - Mt. 28:17. 4. Luke - totally different appearance in Jerusalem where Jesus makes sure to say he's "not a spirit" but composed of flesh and bone, eats fish and is witnessed ascending to heaven! 5. John - Jesus can teleport through locked doors and we get the Doubting Thomas story. Now for the longer version. Let's compare the ways the Resurrected Jesus is said to have been experienced according to the documents arranged in chronological order. As you're reading, ask yourself is this data more expected under the hypothesis of reliable eyewitness testimony vs the hypothesis of an evolving legend? The scholarly consensus dates the documents as follows: - Paul c. 50 CE - is the only firsthand report. He says the Risen Jesus "appeared" ὤφθη (1 Cor 15:5-8) and was experienced through "visions" and "revelations" - 2 Cor 12:1. The appearance to Paul was a vision/revelation *from heaven* - Gal. 1:12-16, Acts 26:19 (not a physical encounter with a revived corpse) and he makes no distinction between what he "saw" and what the others "saw" in 1 Cor 15:5-8 nor does he mention an intervening ascension between the appearances. This shows that early Christians accepted claims of "visions" (experiences that don't necessarily have anything to do with reality) as "Resurrection appearances." Paul nowhere gives any evidence of the Risen Christ being experienced in a more "physical" way which means you have to necessarily read in the *assumption* that the appearances were physical, from a later source that Paul nowhere corroborates. What Paul says in Phillipians 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, and the sequential tradition preserved in Eph. 1:20 is consistent with the belief that Jesus went straight to heaven after the resurrection leaving no room for any physical earthly appearances. If this was the earliest belief then it follows that *all* of the "appearances" were believed to have been of the Exalted Christ in heaven and not physical earthly interactions with a revived corpse. He had a chance to mention the empty tomb in 1 Cor 15 when it would have greatly helped his argument but doesn't. Paul's order of appearances: Peter, the twelve, the 500, James, all the apostles, Paul. No location is mentioned. - Mark c. 70 CE - introduces the empty tomb but has no appearance report. There is no evidence an appearance narrative existed at this point, 40 years after the death of Jesus. The story just predicts Jesus will be "seen" in Galilee in some sense. The original ends at 16:8 where the women leave and tell no one. Mark's order of appearances: Not applicable. There is no evidence an appearance _narrative_ existed at this point. - Matthew c. 80 CE - has the women run to tell the disciples, contradicting Mark's ending. Along the way, Jesus suddenly appears and they grab Jesus' feet. This happens _before_ reaching any disciples which contradicts both Luke and John's depictions. Then there is an appearance in Galilee which "some doubt" - Mt. 28:17. This is strange since Jn. 20:19 says Jesus already appeared the same night of the Resurrection. Matthew also adds a descending angel, great earthquake, and a zombie apocalypse to spice things up. If these things actually happened then it's hard to believe the other gospel authors left them out, let alone any other contemporary source from the time period. This shows that Christian authors _did invent_ details. Matthew's order of appearances: Two women (before reaching any disciples), then to the eleven disciples. The appearance to the women takes place after they leave the tomb in Jerusalem while the appearance to the disciples happens on a mountain in Galilee. - Luke 85-95 CE - has the women immediately tell the disciples, contradicting Mark. Lk. 24:5-8 alters what the angels say and _erases_ the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from Mk. 16:6-7 cf. Mt. 28:5-7. All of Luke's appearances happen in or around Jerusalem which somehow went unnoticed by the authors of Mark and Matthew. He appears to two people on the Emmaus Road who don't recognize him at first. Jesus then vanishes and suddenly appears to the Eleven disciples (which would include Thomas). This time Jesus is "not a spirit" but a "flesh and bone" body that gets inspected, eats fish, then floats to heaven while all the disciples watch - conspicuously missing from all the earlier reports. Luke omits any appearance to the women and implies they _didn't_ see Jesus. Acts 1:3 adds the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared over a period of 40 days and says Jesus provided "many convincing proofs he was alive" which shows the stories were apologetically motivated. Luke's order of appearances: Two on the Emmaus Road, Peter, rest of the eleven disciples. All appearances happen in Jerusalem. Lk. 24:22-24 seems to exclude any appearance to the women. The women's report in Lk. 24:9-10 is missing any mention of seeing Jesus which contradicts Mt. 28:8-11 and Jn. 20:11-18. - John 90-110 CE - Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene outside the tomb but only _after_ she told Peter and the "other disciple." This contradicts Matthew and Luke. Jesus then teleports through locked doors, appears to the disciples then a week later we get the Doubting Thomas story where Jesus invites Thomas to poke him. This story has the apologetic purpose that if you just "believe without seeing" then you will be blessed. There is another appearance by the Sea of Galilee in Jn. 21. John's order of appearances: Mary Magdalene (after telling Peter and the other disciple), the disciples minus Thomas (but Lk. 24:33 implies Thomas was there), the disciples again plus Thomas, then to seven disciples. In John 20 the appearances happen in Jerusalem and in John 21 they happen near the Sea of Galilee on a fishing trip. As you can see, these reports are inconsistent with one another and represent growth that's better explained as legendary accretion rather than actual history. If these were actual historical reports that were based on eyewitness testimony then we would expect more consistency than we actually get. None of the resurrection reports in the gospels even match Paul's appearance chronology in 1 Cor 15:5-8 and the later sources have amazing stories that are drastically different from and nowhere even mentioned in the earliest reports. The story evolves from Paul's spiritual/mystical Christ all the way up to literally touching a resurrected corpse that flies to heaven! Moreover, in Luke and John the stories have obvious apologetic motivations for invention. Even if you dispute the dating of the sources, you still have to reconcile the mass of differences, contradictions and explain why we should believe this is reliable eyewitness testimony when it doesn't look like that at all. If you want to claim this data is consistent with reliable eyewitness testimony then you should start by providing other examples from multiple authors describing the same event from history that: 1. All diverge in fantastic detail like the gospels do. and 2. Scholars still regard them to be reliable historical documents. I maintain that this cannot be done. If attempted, they will immediately realize any other historical documents that look like the gospels do will either be legends themselves or their testimony too questionable to be considered reliable.

I love Alex o Connor. He challenges the atheists the way atheists expect Christian’s to be questioned. Good stuff

apparently the gospel authors also knew the kind of dreams pilate’s wife used to have…

It's incredible that we are still talking about ancient myths today as though they might be real. People thought they saw Elvis after he died too. Can we just grow up as a species? Please.

The fact is, these are in no way well established facts. And somehow we have grown adults, educated people, arguing about the 'undeniably' history, of an _obvious_ fiction, "Mark". The fact that at least two more writers, "Matthew" and "Luke", came along later and added even more fantastical elements, to the story, which actually contradict each other and create an origin story that can not be reconciled with the things we do know about historical goings on at the time, push this entire concept of arguing about some 'well established' "facts" into purely farcical territory.

I remember reading books in the library about the cases of vampires in Eastern Europe, and testimonies from people who had recently lost their relatives saying that they appeared to them after death and said affectionate things to them (people they knew all their lives) and the sadness of losing them added to anemia or other diseases seemed to be an explanation of why this type of hallucinations. Dead mothers, brothers, husbands appeared after they were dead, then they got sick. When they commented on that, it was believed that the hallucinations were vampires and they got sick because the vampires were making them sick. Very superstitious peoples performed exorcisms, decapitated corpses, buried them upside down, among others to avoid cases of vampirism. I remember reading the translation of a letter from the Catholic Church complaining that superstitious ignoramuses decapitated and desecrated corpses for this type of cases.

As far as Paul and claims of 500 seeing Jesus; It is clear to me that Paul is writing to a community which has a significant part who do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus - (and these are amongst the earliest Christians) - and Paul is trying to convince them that it is real. In that context, he claims that he has seen Jesus (although not the actual living person), and that there are 500 others who have seen him. Surely that is just hyperbolic argument, not to be taken as literal history. It would be like Trump's claims of the size of his inauguration crowds.

At the battle of Marathon, Athenian soldiers swore they saw, fighting beside them, the larger-than-life figures of Castor and Pollux, two heroes who had died centuries earlier (they had been with Jason on the Argo in its quest for the Golden Fleece). There--eye witness accounts of a resurrection!

Alex, watched you play the most polite devil's advocate in this whole series. 👍

I love Bart Ehrman's ability to challenge ideas that are considered true by association. Even Alex seem to fall into the trap of agreeing that Jesus was crucified then accepting narrative of things like the burial in a tomb. It's such an important, but difficult, way to think to have to examine each part of a statement as its own factual claim and not one combined fact.

The fact that it's even debatable that a man came back from the dead demonstrates how primitive we really are.

There is no combination more exquisite than Ehrman as interviewed and O'Connor as interviewer ❤

It's somewhat embarrassing for Christians that they can't just yield and realize that the resurrection is symbolic, not literal. They have to bend reason so badly to make it the other way. You can be spiritually "reborn" and experience it in your life. No need to torture old books for facts when they were clearly myths.

WLC: but Lawrence what about the empty tomb? Lawrence Krauss: I don't know look for Jimmy Hoffa. 😂

If Jesus physically rose from the dead and ascended into heaven at what speed did he ascend and how far from earth is he now? Remember, we are talking about him doing these this physically.

Glad to see how Alex's not in the echo-chamber. Also interesting to see how two skeptics go on a productive interview without being too skeptical about everything.

In 1990 there were 2 Elvis sightings, in 2000 there were 200 Elvis sightings, in 2000 Elvis sightings. By 2100 we will all be Elvis.

People! You're NOT "sinners"!!! You/we don't need to be "saved", so we don't need a "savior"!! Damn, this is hard to make clear! People just seem to love to be guilty just for being born! Given this understanding, this whole argument about Jesus, and all the surrounding BS is moot. Just relax and be good people! Any god/s that have a problem with that, well, SUCK!

I just checked William Craigs response to this… SMH… they are saying over on this Christian channel that Alex had Bart Erhman against the wall. Lol what?! They completely dismissed all of Barts great, logical responses. It’s so funny how different opinions are from both sides.

None of the "facts" about Jesus that people claim would stand up in court for anything at all. His existence is highly questionable...and his divinity is a ridiculous claim.

I think more accurately you'd have to say "it was written that groups of people claimed to have seen him" - not even that it was a real claim.

How would the 500 even know what Jesus looked like? There was no TV, magazines, photography, etc. They didn't know what Jesus looked like.

Bart is a Historian. Love-You-Man!

The Resurrection is a story about an immortal Hebrew god who decided to be tortured to death to forgive the crimes committed against him by his children. The strategy failed.

01:00 Even those "well established facts" have *no real historical basis.* No proof. No evidence. No primary sources. The only reason they are "well established" is that these claims don't require the laws of physics to be circumvented. And we concede them to the religious because of a misplaced sense of respect.

Thanks for allowing my freedom of speech. Having been born into a Christian “culture” … where Catholics and Protestants and those who believed in reincarnation … didn’t see “eye to eye” … I learned as I grew older (I am now 84 years of age) that what I was taught as a child … by two wonderful loving parents … needed to be “revised.” My new theory … is an old scientific theory … that in one form or another … the universe and energy always existed … no creator … no plan … and that suffering of all forms of life … is natural. No more trouble-making religion … NEEDED. If I treat others with as much kindness as each situation allows … I can’t do better than my best. And as the old saying goes … “Let the chips fall where they may.”

I`ve never understood the importance given to the empty tomb, even if it was true. Someone could have just removed the body and claimed the guy resurrected. Many people would believe it given the degree of superstition of the time.

Thank you about how crucifixion actually worked. No one was ever taken down from a cross. Once the bones were picked clean, they were put in a common grave.

It is written that there was a man who used his supernatural power to fight evil, and then was killed by evil. Later, he rose from the dead. It is written that many people saw these events and they would not lie about it. The man's name was Harry Potter.

Craig acts like a backstabber when he is talking about Ehrman, when Ehrman isn't around.

Wishful thinking is wishful thinking no matter what century you're in. People have always been guilty of it. I just do not see the standard of evidence being applied to the claims of divinity.

Brilliant steel manning by Alex. Makes this a useful discussion for both the believer and the skeptic. Well done.

WLC usually shits on public figures who disagree with him. He’s done the same to Hitchens and Dawkins.

A more recent account is the large crowd at Fatima seeing the Sun move around the sky. This is in the midst of WWI, many observers elsewhere looking in the sky looking for enemy aircraft. None of them saw the sun dance across the sky. In this case the Catholic Church took the testimony from the witnesses, recording their names.

At 11:58. This ideas of a resurrection got me thinking about Joseph Smith. When he died the Latter-day Saints had a sense of incredulity that he was dead. Smith had died as a young man with a lot of unfinished business. Succession had also not been worked out. Who was supposed to be the new prophet? Brigham Young eventually succeeded after three years. There was a common belief that Joseph Smith would be resurrected from the dead after a prolonged absence. Of course this belief could not be carried on for a long term period. It also did not continue after Young died.

First time I've heard someone at his level say the bible is the claim, not the evidence. Love it.

Why should we believe a claim of 500 witnesses that not one is named, and why should we believe what Paul wrote? when he appears to have hijacked the Jewish Christian movement and developed his own version of it.

I love bart: Then the arguement is, if the gospel narrative is correct, the gospel narrative is correct.

Fun fact - the Greek word used for "appeared" (ophthe) in 1 Cor 15 didn't necessarily indicate the physical appearance of a person. We see the same word being used in the Septuagint when God "appeared" to the Patriarchs but without seeing anything physical or describing a sensory experience. So unless you want to claim these people literally saw the physical body of God then you will have to concede the word can be used in the "feel the presence" sense and so our earliest source is vague in regards to the type of appearances. So when an apologist pulls out the "group appearances" card, it should not be persuasive in the slightest since the earliest source in which they are mentioned (1 Cor 15) does not describe them. On the other hand, if the group appearances _were_ described in 1 Cor 15 as actually seeing a physical person walking around, then in order to doubt that, a skeptic would have to use the hallucinatory explanation - which seems implausible and ad hoc. But since the group appearances *are not described* (all you have is the vague term "appear") then it's not clear that a physical encounter with a resurrected figure on the earth was implied. So instead of shifting the burden onto the skeptic to show these were hallucinations, the proponent of the Resurrection argument actually has the burden to show these encounters were originally understood to be physical interactions with the Resurrected body of Jesus on earth before he went to heaven. Since the term is equally likely to refer to a heavenly/visionary appearance, it doesn't matter how many people were said to experience it. None of the resurrection narratives in the gospels match Paul's appearance chronology from 1 Cor 15 and they all grow more dramatic and fantastic in chronological order as if a legend was evolving. So appealing to the gospels as evidence doesn't help either I'm afraid. Moreover, all the gospels are written in third person. They never say "I saw this happen" and describe it from a firsthand perspective. Only Paul's account is firsthand but the appearance to him was a vision that he does not distinguish from the appearances to the others. This automatically makes the nature of all the other "appearances" ambiguous and so the data is insufficient to establish a Resurrection actually occurred.

Yeah, Pilate had tears in his eyes when he condemned Jesus just like all the police had tears in their eyes when they booked trump

The perception of seeing people who are dead walk around and interact with others is one of the most common human responses to death of a loved one there is. It's ubiquitous across cultures. It's simply the human mind trying to cope with grief. I've worked with dying people for years, and I see the dead everwhere. Most commonly is a transposed image over somebody who looks roughly like the dead person. It's transient and clearly not real.

Alex did a great job of playing the believer in this conversation.

Wonderful! If only political argument could be conducted so politely, we would be better people

Erhman says many people claimed to have seen Mary, but they didn’t know Mary and had never ever seen her in the flesh, so they could not have identified her. However in the case of those who claimed to have seen Christ after He died, they actually had seen Him in the flesh, so they could identify Him.

Ask Craig about the horde of zombies marching on jerusalem.

11:18 "We have these four facts." The gospels exist, that's a fact of course, but how do we know if they are true facts?

Bart summed it all up beautifully at 8:00 'the argument is: "if the gospel narratives are correct then the gospel narratives are correct." There is no argument. Never was, never will be.

Capturing Christianity responded to "defend their faith" and shadowban all atheist to protect their flock of sheeps.

If there is a bigger fraud ever perpetrated upon humanity than the supernatural claims of religion, I've yet to know of such a hoax.

Just think of all the people who claimed to see Elvis alive and well after he was dead and buried. Loads of claims, that went on for years and years. People in the time of the gospel writers believed that Nero was still alive and would return. This kind of thing is very common.

Dr Richard Miller's work Resurrection & Reception In Early Christianity is excellent. You two would have a fantastic conversation ❤

This annoys the heck out of when it is pointed out how bad somebodies claims are and they respond that somehow having a shitload of bad evidence would make good evidence. I had the same conversation with a moon landing denier. At some point he just reverted to basically saying that the amount of assumptions would somehow qualify as evidence itself.

When preachers reached Tibet and told them about their belief in a dead rabbi who came back to life they were bewildered for in Tibetan culture a dead body coming back to life does not generally come back to life under auspicious circumstances. They are ro-lang, a kind of zombie who is reanimated through black magic to perform nefarious deeds, the body is possessed by a powerful gyälpo demon. They asked the preachers "why would someone start a cult around a ro-lang?", which is a very good question. Why would this event even be something important? The idea of resurrection means something significant to first-century jews but not to others at the time.

Robert Englund doesn’t want to admit his Freddy past.

Why are we debating, interviewing, or discussing William Lane Craig. He is long past being taken as a serious thinker.

It's almost like Alex is asking questions from the perspective of the generally accepted worldview where Christianity is the most popular religion. I really love, "To think that Jesus is the exception just means that we're so used to thinking of Jesus as the exception" Really smart, that Bart

Nice job playing the other side objections. My question about Pilate is, how would any of the writers know Pilate’s thoughts? How would any writer have access to them unless they were (at best) a part of his inner circle? It’s obvious Pilate’s part of the Gospels is fiction.

WLC has a money-making gimmick even he doesn’t believe in. At the end of the day all he has is an assertion.

Im a ugandan who grew up hearing stories of people who rose from the dead among my own country. And Tha our president turns into a cat or a termite when he wants to escape danger especially during his guerilla war times. Eye witness claims should always be taken with a grain of salt

We all just need to grow up. Religion is the very worst explanation for where we came from. None of it makes any sense, and its all man-made mumbo jumbo. If WLC had been born in India, he'd be arguing ferociously in favour of Ram or Vishnu or some other. That tells you all you need to know about religion.

I wished you had this type of push back when WLC was being interviewed.

Another thing on top of all the points Alex brings up, this isn't being applied to an emperor or a conqueror, Jesus is just some kind of popular carpenter. He isn't Romulus the founder of Rome, he isn't Muhammad a conqueror and warlord of a massive Arab army, He's just some otherwise unnoteworthy guy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there isn't any evidence for these kinds of myths for any other person except for politically powerful or important people.

Hi, Christian here. 👋 You just gained a subscriber. Thank you for asking truth seeking questions. The Truth is all that matters brothers.

Alex does a good job as a "devils advocate" although, this time the terminology is in reverse 😂

If one looks to Roman history, Pontius Pilate was anything but the figure portrayed in the gospels. He was ordered back to Rome for excessive harshness and cruelty.

I'd love to see Alex re-start this exact conversation with Dr. Richard Carrier.

I always enjoy hearing from Bart.

Alex is such a sharp listener. He isn't just waiting to say his next talking point.

How did ANYONE know what happened when Pilate and Jesus were face to face? C'MON!!!

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Jesus came back and performed some miracles for us on Netflix, went on a global tour to share his divinity. Everyone would convert to Christianity that week. Shame on him and his dad for letting us flounder all these centuries.

Whether Jesus was buried in a tomb is one question. And whether people would know where the tomb was located to check for him forty years after his death is another. Recall, the first gospel account was written decades after his death. Since the life expectancy of people living in first century Palestine was about 25 to 35 years, many who would know first hand what happened were likely not alive. But speculation without thinking is the norm for our time.

It's interesting to me how upsetting I found it for you to push back on Bart's points. You were a great interviewer and you really elucidated the logic and merits of his points by asking such probing questions; I think I might need to step outside of my own echo chamber more lol. Very well done.

I can tell that Dr Ehrman is a great professor/teacher. He keep asking why? Why? He explains so well!!!

A female pastor made my middle leg grow. It's a proven miracle. I was then thrown out of church for what she did

A billion people have come to believe something therefor it must be true. Why would anyone think you can find the truth in a public opinion poll?

I think it's a mistake to say that a claim unsupported by evidence is strengthened because there are also further connected claims, equally unsupported by evidence. That was otherwise a really enjoyable conversation.

Nice to see you getting bonda fide thinkers on the subject. Speaks to your success as a thoughtful mind in the space. Hitch was my voice reason - without a doubt you will be one for this generation

Yes!❤ So glad to see him hitting back at Dr. William L Craig

Bart's propensity to interrupt someone's point and talk over them is so frustrating. I wish he'd fully listen, wait for his turn to speak, and practice some better decorum.

alex is something the world needed a true , well intentioned middle man

There is no evidence or testimonies of groups of people seeing things, we have a story, written by one writer, who writes that he heard about, groups of people saying they saw things. Notice the difference and how people are increasing the credibility, often without them even realizing it?

The reason there is so little written about him between his young years and when he started his preaching is that they only made up the part about his ministry and then had to go back and make up the stuff about his miraculous birth and left off making up stuff about his teenage years and his early 20s. Then they had to make up some nonsense about his being in Asia or England or other such stuff. (If he were a real person and the whole story was true, then they would have been following him his entire life - what with the three wisemen and the star hanging over his place of birth. How is he such a big deal when he was born or debated the Rabbis in the Synagogue, then becomes totally irrelevant for 20 years?) Yes, I know the Dr. doesn't necessarily believe all of the birth stuff but this is intended for those who do. It's all nonsense.

WLC has been very rude towards Bart for years.

Don’t know why people don’t talk about someone replacing Jesus after his death. It’s the obvious solution and even hinted at in the gospels.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🕊️ Bart Ehrman discusses his past conversation with William Lane Craig about the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus. 01:08 📜 Ehrman mentions four generally agreed-upon facts about Jesus: his existence, teachings, crucifixion, and post-death sightings. 03:41 💬 Ehrman questions the claim of an empty tomb, highlighting issues with its historical evidence and reliability. 08:09 🤔 Ehrman doubts the portrayal of Pontius Pilate as disturbed by Jesus' crucifixion, viewing it as an attempt to emphasize Jewish culpability. 11:48 🧐 Ehrman questions the reliability of Paul's claim of 500 people seeing Jesus, citing a lack of corroboration in other sources. 16:36 🙏 Ehrman highlights the difference between individual writers' claims about groups seeing Jesus and actual groups of people attesting to the sightings, suggesting stronger evidence is needed.

Many people reported seeing Elvis after he died.

I commend the tough questioning you applied, Alex, when I know you stand with Bart. Well done. We learned a lot more for the quality of your questions.

Damn, last time I came this early I had to apologise

Craig just can’t stand the fact that Bart is widely considered one of the foremost experts on the Bible. He hates it and he has to try to discredit Bart. It’s even worse to him that he’s not a Christian.