Ehrman vs Craig: Evidence for Resurrection

Подписаться 166 тыс.

Просмотров 243 тыс.

50% 1

On March 28, 2006 at the College of the Holy Cross, 1 College Street, Worcester, Massachusetts, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and Dr. William Lane Craig debate “Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?” Bart claims that a miraculous event like the resurrection of Jesus is so improbable that the historian could never justifiably adopt such an explanation of the fate of Jesus of Nazareth. Dr. Craig attempts to expose what he calls two critical mistakes in Ehrman's reasoning which he calls "Ehrman's Egregious Error" and "Bart's Blunder."
A full transcript has been provided by Reasonable Faith with William Lane Craig here: www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the...
Video discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/?p=11745
Please note: The video quality from the source is extremely poor, where old NTSC equipment was used to record the event. Color and audio correction was applied to try to compensate, but overall the video is not good.
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D. Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until 1994.
Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman and William Lane Craig. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this media without express and written permission from those listed.

Опубликовано:

8 авг 2016

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 1,2 тыс.

@davidmthorley 3 года назад

I’m slightly incredulous that Craig doesn’t see the irony when he uses words like “fanciful” or “improbable” to describe Ehrman’s naturalistic explanations for the resurrection. Like... he’s claiming that a supernatural being raising his son (who is also himself) from the grave is somehow less fanciful?

@ramigilneas9274 3 года назад

The naturalistic explanations are extremely improbable... therefore my impossible supernatural explanation that has never been observed anywhere ever must be true.😂

@alienboy9847 3 года назад

@@ramigilneas9274 Actually not the case. Both of you guys are doing a scarecrow fallacy. Theses guys are talking about history in a historical point of view, when Dr. Craig says fanciful or improbable he's talking in a historical perspective. If you want to talk about supernaturallity then we can talk about philosophy and God and so on, but IT'S WAS NOT THE CASE IN THIS DEBATE. Don't act in this way when you don't even understood his point.

@Kvothe3 3 года назад

@@alienboy9847 Could you articulate Craig's argument as you understand it?

@enaidealukal4105 3 года назад

@@alienboy9847 silly. OP's not making any argument/inference about Craig's position, just noting their own incredulity at a perceived irony: there is no fallacy. Fallacies are illicit inferences (premise->conclusion); even if the OP is incorrect (they're not, it is an outrageous and rather amusing irony) to accuse them of fallacy is just a category error. Why do people think citing a name of a fallacy is an argument, especially when they evidently don't know what a fallacy even is on a basic basic level? You just make yourself look like a buffoon.

@didack1419 3 года назад

@@alienboy9847 The supernatural claims are also historical claims, to argue otherwise is pointless because the point is to establish which is the most probable set of events. WLC argues: -Ehrman's proposed set of events (Ehrman's theory) is unlikely. -Events which are unlikely are less probable of happening that events which are likely (definition of "unlikely"). Conclusion 1: the set of events presented by Ehrman is improbable of having happened (by definition). But Zardoz and Gami know that he has a favorite theory that he positively proposes which summarised is: - The set of supernatural claims roughly presented on the Gospels (Craig's theory) is the most likely explanation for the beginning of Christianity (if not he would not be a Christian theist after all). Conclusion 2: by the definition of "likely", the best explanation for the beginning of Christianity is Craig's theory (Craig's position). And then Zardoz and Rami come and acknowledge that: *Conclusion 3: Craig believes necessarily that in some situations supernaturalistic explanations are more likely than naturalistic ones.* *And then, they claim that "haha, I personally find rather amusing that someone could claim that a naturalistic explanation is less likely than a supernaturalistic one"* Did they misrepresent Craig's believes? How are they strawmaning Craig's position please explain.

@dougarnold7955 3 года назад

Thanks. It's always amazing how interesting your debates and lectures are to me. It's never been a topic of personal interest to me but rather a topic of personal interest to others in my life who routinely pestered me about it! Anyway, it's a big help. 👋😏

@BornYooper 6 лет назад

People do not rise from the dead. The fact this is being argued and believed by many in the United States does not bode well for our nation's future.

@BlGGESTBROTHER 5 лет назад

Anyone else get distracted by the creepy dude standing in the doorway?

@agentjackstone3543 4 года назад

HAHAHAHAHA this is my favorite comment.

@elainejohnson6955 4 года назад

I could not concentrate on the speakers because of that! I had to stop watching and just listen to them.

@hanialturk5981 4 года назад

Lol I just noticed him....very funny

@jodypalmer583 4 года назад

That's frickin hilarious. Now I cant pay attention. Thanks a lot. LOL

@jps101574 4 года назад

I think he is a security guard making sure no one interferes with the presentation.

@PascalsWager5 6 лет назад

I’ve noticed that Craig is quite often “stunned” by opponents choice of argument

@nates9029 3 года назад

@TheCosmicWarrior - Because he talks facts, history and logic as opposed to beliefs?! Interesting.

@mbnall 3 года назад

Exactly. It’s one of his debate tactics. He acts shocked when someone doesn’t agree with him, making it seem like the other person is somehow radical or not presenting a common scholarly view.

@jayathvidanage380 3 года назад

@TheCosmicWarrior C Christianity is based upon “believing” “fact’ that has no solid evidence. ( in fact there are NO good HISTORICAL not bilical EVIDENCE that Jesus actually exist) · Problem with believe system is once you believe something you stop thinking logically what is truth because you think you already found it!! · You cannot get truth from a book, internet , teacher Bible..you can only get truth by using your brain, · The greatest Jewish teacher said · “seek the truth .. truth set you free … · Are you seeking the truth ??

@amandamcgovern5744 3 года назад

It’s an obnoxious tactic..

@saimtanweer5720 3 года назад

@@jayathvidanage380 Bart ehrman has himself written a book on historicity of Jesus of Nazareth even seeing it through historical lenses So saying Jesus Christ didn't existed is a faulty claim

@Xtianisms 4 года назад

Funny how in Dr. Craig's RU-vid page, the comments are turned off

@samiasaeed3120 4 года назад

He's scared of how many people are gonna roast him for his stupidity

@unluckyking19 4 года назад

Yeah

@arandompanda1349 4 года назад

What s funny about that and why would you want them turned on?

@arandompanda1349 4 года назад

@@samiasaeed3120 go on and try friend. No one is stopping you from doing so, the comments here are on as you know.

@sokratiskonstantaras320 4 года назад

@@samiasaeed3120 because all the time the minority of atheists want to feel nice by ad hominem and attacking.

@ianyboo 7 лет назад

Craig is basically Ray Comfort with a thesaurus... That might sound flippant but if you listen closely to what they both say it boils down to the exact same argument from personal experience: "No evidence can convince me I'm wrong because my god has personally contacted me and confirmed that I'm right."

@Phobos_Anomaly 7 лет назад

"Ray Comfort with a thesaurus" is probably the best description of Craig that I've ever heard. Humorous, pithy, accurate and illustrative. Nice work!

@elkellenhabla 7 лет назад

Have you heard of a "properly basic belief"? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like you're more in the habit of maligning people that don't share your beliefs than reading, but I thought I'd ask.

@ianyboo 7 лет назад

elkellenhabla I'm aware that he has a label for his argument from personal experience. I'm fine with him calling it whatever he likes. It still boils down to faith that he rests his belief on (the belief that his particular god is real) instead of evidence. When asked for evidence for his specific god Dr Craig either dodges the question or starts talking deism.

@ianyboo 7 лет назад

elkellenhabla oh I forgot one. Or he restates the claim itself and pretends it's "evidence."

@elkellenhabla 7 лет назад

+Ian G so you don't think there are any properly basic beliefs? What evidence do you have that the world around you actually exists and you're not just a brain in a vat being stimulated by a scientist?

@thetannernation 3 года назад

To be honest this debate could have been so much better. They didn’t even get to debate at all because they never could agree on what counts as “historical.” The entire debate was WLC giving arguments, Bart not tearing them down but rather labeling them as a category mistake, and that was the tone for the entire debate.

@qqqmyes4509 4 года назад

1:07:10 I cannot wrap my head around why WLC thinks 1 Corinthians 15 attests to an empty tomb. Why does he say that it acts as a summary of the stories of the Gospels, when the Gospels were written afterwords, which may have themselves filled in the gap and included the empty tomb narrative after Paul’s letter? It seems that Paul’s letter is logically consistent with there being empty tomb, but it is equally consistent with it not having been true and the Gospels adding on that piece later. Further, I think we would expect certain things if the empty tomb were true- we would expect Paul to mention it, we would expect early Christians to identify and venerate the tomb

@jmwilson100 3 года назад

On your last point, I think an interesting case can be made that the tomb was, in fact, venerated. I'm not an expert by any means, but the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, purportedly the burial site of Jesus, seems to have a really early tradition. The Church as it is today has existed since the 4th century, and there was a Roman temple built on top of the site that dates back to the 2nd century. It's possible that Constantine just demolished a random temple and claimed that Jesus' tomb was under it for popular reasons or whatever, but it seems equally or more plausible that the Roman temple was built on top of a popular Christian site to suppress the growing religion (this would have been in the time period when the Christians faced more significant persecution). The tomb seems to fit what is recounted in the Gospels, both in its characteristics and in location. I'm not saying this is definitive or anything, but it does seem like it could possibly answer your last objection.

@timoshala8928 4 года назад

I like these debates. Dr. Ehrman always shows himself to be a person commited to finding the truth, he is not afraid to change his mind when evidence to the contrary persuades him to this change. What I always see on the other side is an attempt after attempt to hammer the only opinion again and again. I see a huge lack of flexibility, reflection, lack of the benefit of the doubt. Sort of a stuck mentality. However, I agree and support Craig's claim that a personal spiritual experience can be extremely powerful. We can all argue about the source of this experience. However, its very real and in and of itself seem to open up certain unknown side of reality.

@greyeyed123 7 лет назад

The workings of the individual human mind will never cease to confound me.

@mickqQ 4 года назад

Craig strawmaned Ehrman When Ehrman said “ historians cannot access god , therefore cannot day what god did “ Craig claimed that meant, Ehrman couldn’t say that the resurrection did not happen . Ehrman was not saying the resurrection didn’t happen He was saying it could not be shown that it did , with the historical evidence.

@qqqmyes4509 4 года назад

TheCosmicWarrior Wait what? It’s the other way around...

@andrewagyeman3338 4 года назад

Aren't you such an idiot? Do a simple Google search on their backgrounds

@versioncity1 4 года назад

I'm not sure I see the point in this debate as both are approaching it from completely different fields.

@utubepunk 7 лет назад

Bill still shuffling papers. He's always filing his taxes during these debates.

@danielmartini3229 5 лет назад

Will

@farziran87m6 5 лет назад

Lol he looks like a lawyer at his first trial.

@farziran87m6 5 лет назад

Hey honey my keys were on the table they are no longer there. They were raised to heaven. Possible but not likely

@susanthroop7041 4 года назад

He's got to conger up some rebuttal.

@colinc892 4 года назад

@TheCosmicWarrior You think so? I think Ehrman did very well, especially against a seasoned debater like Craig. Keep in mind Ehrman is an academic, not a debater. That said, I thought it was good on both sides

@samspade225 4 года назад

Professor Ehrman, your are damn good! Must be frustrating to debate someone who just repeats his own arguments and never considers anything else!

@endofscene 5 лет назад

WLC: "The majority of NT scholars agree with my 4 facts." BE: "That's because most NT scholars are Christian." WLC: "You're views are in the minority among NT scholars." BE: "That's because most NT scholars are Christian."

@Heretical_Theology 4 года назад

Good stuff but it's WLC* : )

@Felipe-sw8wp 4 года назад

Is Ehrman implying that the Christian scholars of the NT are commiting frauds in favor of their belief?

@endofscene 4 года назад

@@Felipe-sw8wp Fraud is a strong word. I think he's suggesting they may be irreconcilably biased. The simple fact is that the vast majority of non-Christians have very little motivation to devote their lives to studying the Bible.

@noelhausler2911 4 года назад

@@endofscene" It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"

@karcharias811 4 года назад

Erhman is involved in assuming the bias fallacy. He assumes that because they are Christian they accept the facts Craig is talking about. He doesn't acknowledge the idea that perhaps they accept the facts and therefore as a result they are Christian.

@TheTikiMan 4 года назад

BART: I've studied EVERY text from the first 500 years. WC: I have a list of 4 things.

@BRNRDNCK 4 года назад

What a stupidly simplistic summary of the debate. What is your age?

@TheCristianobil 3 года назад

@@keithtorres5743 interesting how you are making it sound like it is either atheism or christianity....Being critical of one of the pillars of this faith does not mean someone rejects the almighty, anyway may god guide us all !!

@nathanmckenzie904 3 года назад

@@keithtorres5743 huh?

@SAADOFFICIAL436 3 года назад

@@keithtorres5743 So?? Prove that Jesus ressurected..... Don't change topic and don't fool others like paul did

@michaelvoorhees7812 3 года назад

@@keithtorres5743 The problem comes when you can't seperate fiction and reality. We know gravity is real because it exist, if your ID says Keith, that's enough (unless you are criminal, but we can know that with enough investigation). If you said 2000 years ago there was a wizard who was the son of god because his ""followers"", decades after his death, said that (followers that can't agree with each other on nothing), then there is not difference between that and a con man.

@SadisticSenpai61 7 лет назад

Was Buddha born through a slit in his mother's side? It's not impossible. It's not even improbable - we do C-sections all the time in the modern day. The question isn't whether or not it's possible or even probable. It's whether or not it actually happened and if we have enough evidence to say whether or not it's likely that it happened as it was reported to have happened. There are accounts of miracles and virgin births all throughout history, including accounts from witnesses to the events. And yet, the only miraculous accounts that WLC accepts as real are the ones that form the basis for his religion. Wasn't he so lucky to have found the one true religion in all the world? And it just happened to be the dominant religion in his culture! Wow!

@ApaX1981 7 лет назад

It must be designed, hence it is evidence for god.

@jlong9574 3 года назад

@@keithtorres5743 Theres no reason any rational thinking person should believe a dead guy came back to life.

@robinhoodstfrancis 3 года назад

@@jlong9574 Except that his context is not just an oversimplified, reductionist "dead guy" who studied enough to use the term "rational," and thinks he knows it all. A lot of Scientism ideologues want to say Freud´s "TAlk Therapy" doesn´t heal, and that Psychosomatic Medicine doesn´t heal. And yet they do, and so on. Saying Rasputin in Russia around 1916 was just some mooch and charismatic guy or shyster doesn´t quite explain that healing Prince Alex´s hemophilia wasn´t not some card trick. Lourdes healings have been subjected medical scrutiny up to modern times, as have numerous kinds of psychospiritual and religious healings, including Christian Science. Besides that, any Western "rational thinking person (rtp)" who has a healthy conscience owes a total debt to Jesus´ legacy and its unprecedented complexity. Or maybe you are ready to move to China, etc because it´s all the same. Not by a long shot. And not to invalidate their culture totally, because that´s not the full truth since Christian Civilization´s greatest strength has been educational learning. Secondly, any "rtp" has studied enough history, Social Sci, and the Bible can see the connections from Jesus´ loving commandments to the Reformation, democratic experiments, abolition of slavery, Social Movements, socio-ecological market economics, and the UN etc Human Rights community of nations.

@ramigilneas9274 3 года назад

@@robinhoodstfrancis In reality it took Christians almost 2k years to find out that slavery is bad and that women should have equal rights. And it’s probably also just a coincidence that all of this only happened after the enlightenment and after the secularization of the western world, after Christianity lost a lot of influence.😂

@gamerknown 3 года назад

@@keithtorres5743 What happened to Peter Sutcliffe? If God had commanded him to punish prostitutes, surely the judge would be subverting Deuteronomy 22:13 and God's divine will?

@karynation128 6 лет назад

For those who say "Debater 'A' is horrible and Debater 'B' is great misses the whole point of two people coming together to discuss opposing points of view. I respect both men who are involved in this debate and I thank them both for participating.

@timw4383 6 лет назад

Angelize Tuco: You can't sit on the fence with something like this. I'm a Christian and I know there is absolutely no evidence for the resurrection. People like Craig are misleading the public. Bart Ehrman bases a lot if his interpretations on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the texts; but in this argument he correctly identifies Craigs position as weak and personal with no real evidence to support his claim. There's no room for both men to be right, not here.

@Heretical_Theology 4 года назад

@@timw4383 You can respect both men and not sit on the fence. : )

@Phi1618033 7 лет назад

William Lane Craig's argument in a nutshell: I cannot think of any reason why it wasn't a miracle so it must have been a miracle. I cannot think of any reason why William Lane Craig hasn't been brainwashed by extraterrestrial beings so he must have been brainwashed by extraterrestrial beings.

@thefuckenmanful 7 лет назад

Clearly you misunderstand his logic.

@Phi1618033 7 лет назад

Craig doesn't even understand how probability works. His attempt at mathematically proving the resurrection is laughable.

@thebaconized4733 7 лет назад

Truthwarrior Logic? By the same logic we should be accepting most other supernatural/paranormal claims. I do not call that logic. Logic is about drawing a necessary conclusion, not presenting debatable historical occurrences and drawing a sweeping, non-sequitur conclusion.

@tonywallens217 4 года назад

The baconized he was drawing a necessary conclusion. Based on much positive evidence to his claim, and a serious lack of evidence for counter claim

@Robert.Deeeee 7 лет назад

Sorry, Dr Craig, calling something a fact, doesn't make it one no matter how many times you say.

@MariaMaria-hv4py 7 лет назад

and calling it a hallucination, don't make it one also.

@AntoineLamond1 7 лет назад

Well yes, but considering what we call hallucinations today (i.e. hearing voices and thinking they are telling you to do illogical things) would easily compare to the 'Voice' that Jesus heard saying 'This is my son. . . .'.

@mhmeekk3003 7 лет назад

Robbie Desiato that's not Craig's argument. Good try. Don't expect a response from me unless you can address the evidence.

@charlesdarwin180 5 лет назад

Lol, you have no evidence. The four "facts" that Craig talked about are NOT evidence in rising from the dead. Explain how being buried proves someone rose from the dead. It's simply not evidence of rising from the dead. Craig is a great bull$hit artist but anyone can see it's bull$hit unless that person is brainwashed with his same supernatural belief background.

@MrMcWally 5 лет назад

@@AntoineLamond1 please don't make ignorant statements, the voice from heaven that you're referring to was heard not only by Jesus. Try again

@mariosiaven2965 4 года назад

The core problem with Craigs thesis (including the Statistics formula) is that the basis for his assumptions are mostly theological so when you start with this assumption you cannot come up with a historical solution to the problem being studied: the historicity of the resurrection

@WolfestoneManor 6 лет назад

Aside: Craig REALLY likes to stack the deck and shift the burden of proof with his whole "he must tear down ALL of my arguments and make his own positive case." Usually he hides behind "atheism is actually a denial of god claims" but he can't do that with Ehrman.

@karcharias811 4 года назад

Why shouldn't Ehrman back up his own claims. We can't know? Really why not? He should answer such questions. His approach is purely speculative.

@UK_WMB 4 года назад

@@karcharias811 he says exactly why we don't know and can't know with the information we have. Because we don't have the quality of evidence required by historians to determine historical fact. No contemporaneous accounts, no eye witnesses and conflicting details.

@arandompanda1349 4 года назад

@@UK_WMB conflicting details? Please explain where you find a confliction. Contemporaneous accounts? For an event that happened 2000 years ago, that would be impossible. But thankfully we have accounts of people that were there 2000 years ago.

@tenmanX 4 года назад

@@arandompanda1349 Care to explain what people or accounts you are referring to here?

@ichigo449 3 года назад

@@arandompanda1349 Contemporaneous accounts from that period exist in abundance for events that happened in Rome and China. Judea being an unimportant backwater full of illiterate peasants does make the lack of contemporaneous accounts of an unremarkable apocalyptic prophet that was crucified understandable though sure. Weird that Jesus didn't reveal himself in Rome or a major city in China where we would have excellent records isn't it?

@MuhammadAbdullah-lx6tg 7 лет назад

Hi...Prof DR Bart D Ehrman. I am from Indonesia, I leant so much from you. Please keep up the good job. You are very smart person. Thank you.

@anothercath 5 лет назад

In case you are a Muslim, Islam is also as fake as Christianity btw.

@waleed8618 5 лет назад

@@anothercath You are entitled to your opinion.

@susanthroop7041 4 года назад

What did you learn from him?

@seemasalman1242 4 года назад

Hey buddy mind your own business we muslims have nothing to do with this why don't you start looking at scholars who study and appreciate the new testament

@methedudeful 7 лет назад

Is it me or is Craig grasping at straws -- pulling in an algorithm to explain a fact that does not require mathematics -- and splitting hairs? In the equation used to determine probability, "Y" would have to be FACTS, otherwise their probability is just as bad as the ultimate probability being calculated.

@thewallcometh1444 4 года назад

Pythagoras is rolling in his grave.

@ihababdulfatah8295 6 лет назад

The probability of finding a way of calculating Pr(R/B&E), which is the probability of resurrection, is lower than the probability of resurrection itself which is extremely small

@qqqmyes4509 4 года назад

How can we know that the Gospels have independent sources for their reports of certain events?

@gousnavy 3 года назад

Elvis died. Thousands saw him alive afterwards.

@philpaine3068 3 года назад

Sorry, Dr. Craig, but the "best explanation" of the story of the resurrection is that it's a story --- just as the best explanation of the story that Hanuman flew from Sri Lanka to the Himalayas is that it's a story.

@nathanjora7627 3 года назад

I like how Dr.Erhman had to preface his intro with « I’ll rebut his points with my next speech » because otherwise Craig would do his slimy « but note how my opponent didn’t rebut X and Y argument », as if it was caused by anything other than the shameless gish gallop he likes to do.

@ryanm1975 6 лет назад

I'm so happy to have come across a debate. I'm a big fan of both.

@tomdelinger7206 4 года назад

Ehrman demolishes Craig's arguments for the third time and Craig stands up and says I don't think he answered my arguments. When his arguments aren't facts in the first place. What a dumbbell

@borneandayak6725 3 года назад

The fact it. Dr. Craig destroy every Erhman's arguments.

@drumrboi72 3 года назад

"Ehrman demolishes Craig???🤨"...On WHAT planet???...Certainly not THIS 1!

@azharsofjan9181 3 года назад

He's been debating since High School. It's a common debate tactic. You need to verbally voice it assertively. It increases the likelihood that your audience that are already leaning into your position will find what you have to say convincing. He's a good debater, no doubt. However, sometimes his material is so weak when he's up against scholars in fields that are way out of his expertise such as History with Bart Ehrman and Sean Caroll with Physics.

@ramigilneas9274 3 года назад

@@keithtorres5743 Craigs arguments: The Bible says it... therefore it’s true. Some superstitious savages who had no way of knowing if the claims are true converted. That’s basically the entire argument... 😂

@shrirambhandari1463 4 года назад

The biggest problem with Dr Craig's proposition, is that the 4 Gospels are simply Gospels which were actually accepted as Orthodox, there were many beliefs about Jesus around that time. Many even believed that Jesus did not get physically resurrected.

@dynamic9016 4 года назад

Great debate and I've learned tremendously from both debaters.One being philosophical or theological and the other being historical inorder to establish their arguments.

@EzerEben 4 года назад

What I understand from your comment is that it is not accurate historically that Jesus resurrected, but we can fantasize about it all we want.

@michaelpanousos326 4 года назад

The two debaters seem to have argued from two diametrically opposite sides. Bart claimed that you can't impose theological interpretations to prove the historicity of some NT events. Craig claimed that the historical veracity of the NT assertions ( the specific evidence/E that he used for his calculus) indicate that a supernatural ressurection of Jesus is the most likely explanation, which if true, augments the value of the theological proposition, namely that God exists. At this point, they should have focused the debate entirely on the authenticity of the 4 ''facts'' that Craig presented, and suspend any explanation of them, until and if they have a common basis.

@ramigilneas9274 3 года назад

Well, you can use Bayes Theorem to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus probably didn’t exist. It’s all about the prior probabilities that you insert in your formula. If you start with the belief that the God of the Bible exists and that he certainly wants to resurrect Jesus then of course you might insert a high probability for that claim. And if you are a little bit more reasonable you might use a prior probability that is very close to zero, maybe 1 in 100 billion.😂

@mikenolan9664 3 года назад

I keep looking for a good debate from WLC as he seems to be so highly regarded. I'm yet to find one. If anyone has a link please share. Unless you think his math/probability material is good, in which case don't worry about it.

@dilldoe1976 7 лет назад

Isn't Craig's probability calculus the same methodology that really good used car salesmen use to sell lemons.

@donaldshelton1720 5 лет назад

What did the apostles and Paul suffered martyrdom for him? If they were selling used cars wouldn’t they hav3 just moved on to a better place to sell?

@snuzebuster 5 лет назад

@@donaldshelton1720 He said Craig, not Paul. But the argument you are making re: martyrdom could just as well apply to Joseph Smith.

@snuzebuster 5 лет назад

Craig's probability calculus is valid. However, he makes some assumptions that make his conclusion unsound. Since we probably cannot legitimately assume either naturalism or theism on this, then at best, the highest prior probability one can assign to a resurrection is .5 and so the highest final probability one could get would be .5. And this would involve maximally generous assumptions otherwise. I mean even if we allow that God may exist, what is the probability that he would want to resurrect Jesus? Being agnostic as to Gods existence and whether he would want to resurrect Jesus already knocks us down to a max prob of .25. Further assumptions being made by Craig are that the probability of the evidence having a naturalistic explanation are low. What evidence? A bunch of fantastic stories? What is the probability that a bunch of fantastic stories could have arisen due to the tendency of human beings to concoct fantastic stories. I certainly wouldn't rate that as low probability. My assessment of his probability calculus? Garbage in, garbage out.

@JohnSmith-ms4xd 4 года назад

@@snuzebuster You're right about all this. The fact that he wants to assign a nontrivial probability to someone being resurrected by any means given our background knowledge of the world already tells you how downright loony his assumptions are. Ehrmann is exactly right about that having to have a vanishingly low probability when compared to all demonstrably possible explanations such as the wild imagination that Ehrmann dreamt up in his opening speech. How high is the probability that the four specifics of the stories arose (ignoring that they aren't even identical in the separate accounts) given that Jesus didn't actually get resurrected and given our background knowledge of the world? No idea, but a damn sight higher than the probability that he was resurrected, given our background knowledge of the world. And obviously the probability that he wasn't resurrected given our background knowledge of the world is pretty close to 1.

@adamgarrettJn15 4 года назад

How would you revise the equation?

@rebelresource 5 лет назад

Ehrman, have you interacted with David Flusser's, Safrai's, Bivin's, and Lindsay's scholarship? How do you feel about the idea that Jesus belonged to the Hasidim and fell under the teachings of Hillel? Do you think that these historical connections to the Mishnah bolster the words reliability of Jesus within their context of Second Temple?

@T2revell 6 лет назад

The moment that Craig decided to start on his third point basically saying that revelation was proof of the resurrection is win this debate got downright laughable. That’s one of the stupidest argument I’ve heard yet. Especially when you’re trying to debate somebody like Bart Erman

@susanthroop7041 4 года назад

He didn't say that; He gave 4 historical conclusion that say the resurrection is believable. Maybe you should watch and listen to the video before you comment and use your brain for something more than a hat rack. Your response is downright laughable.

@adamgarrettJn15 4 года назад

To say that he said that is wrong and a straw man argument.

@YAHOOISNOTG 4 года назад

If that's what you understood from what he actually said than you most likely have sibling parents, perhaps maybe just bad genetics lol

@JWu-jt7fz 4 года назад

His third point of experience was more of a philosophical argument for meaning.

@TheMadogg 6 лет назад

As a former 26 year fundamentalist christian Craig lost me at "experience equals evidence"...rubbish! Many Christians claim experiences that turned out to never have happened for a fact. I have been a personal witness to this. This is the exact problem in the church right now, believing in a faith blindly at the get go without understanding the historicity or evidence behind it. He believed it first to be true then studied the material that has complemented his beliefs, probably on a confirmation bias with maybe a few challenges along the way. Whats even more bizarre is Craig's argument on probability, Bart is correct with what he is saying. My sibling has an honors degree studying history and agrees supernatural events such as the Resurrection cannot qualify as a historical event because its simply supernatural, and shes a conservative christian! If so we would have to consider the claims of Islam and every other supernatural event that holds value. Ehrman is the only bible scholar i actually like listening to, he knows his shit, backs it up in his debates and isnt afraid to have to change his mind! He did it before when he was in Craig's position and believe me its not easy, especially when you loose people in your life for it. Happy i found out about him!

@bobgriffith1810 5 лет назад

madi88 So you feel better now that you are a pagan.? You better practice your opening statement your gonna need it without an advocate.

@jeffersonianideal 5 лет назад

@@bobgriffith1810 Is Allah your God?

@derp8575 5 лет назад

She's pagan? @@bobgriffith1810

@derp8575 5 лет назад

Y'all act like Scientologists after a member leaves. @@jeffersonianideal

@agentjackstone3543 4 года назад

Sounds good and all, but as a former pagan who practiced necromancy I can tell you it was my direct experience with the power of the name of Jesus Christ that secured my faith in God. I was having very intrusive and violent paranormal experiences and after exhausting all other options it was His name that ended the terror. In the five years since this has happened to me I have read and listened to as much as I could stand concerning these matters....my theological beliefs keep changing as I learn more, and I am overwhelmed by all the various positions....but one thing I am certain of is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ. He is my Lord, and He is alive! Had I never even read the bible I would still be belong to Him all for the sake of that beautiful name which did indeed save me and give me a new life!

@drrydog 4 года назад

Why does Craig insist on using the word "Know" every time he speaks of how Christians "know" that jesus is risen. Why even debate these idiots. at least get the terms correct. It is impossible to prove, therefore you don't know. You guess. You have faith.

@susanthroop7041 4 года назад

If you know the Lord personally then you know Him. That's a different than "proving."

@colinc892 3 года назад

@@susanthroop7041 there's a woman who personally knows and has a relationship with a ferris wheel at a fair. That doesn't mean the ferris wheel is actually a sentient being.

@johncook19 3 года назад

I have to admit, I hold WLC in great contempt, and funnily enough I admire him in a way, he has this amazing ability to look his audience in the eyes and tell the most amazing "pork pies". He really is a pork pie guru. The best of all about dear WLC, is when he walks to the podium to deliver a new batch of pork pies, is the sound of his feet colliding with the floor. I could recognise this "pork pie" teller anywhere.

@ramigilneas9274 3 года назад

@@susanthroop7041 You don’t know, you pretend to know.😉

@alexm2404 3 года назад

Craig's last answer to the question refuted everything he claimed in this debate - he is not applying the same rational to the bible as he is doing for other writings. Strange...

@goodarguments 4 года назад

If anyone thinks Craig ignored Ehrman's question about the reliability of the gospels, then you must certainly believe Ehrman avoided answering Craig's 3-points rebuttal about the gospel inconsistencies.

@ShouVertica 3 года назад

That was not exactly the case and WLC avoided nearly every direct question Ehrman put out. And they were not exactly hard questions either.

@mandude7266 3 года назад

Herman’s questions weren’t hard, but they also didn’t address the central question in the debate.

@dordogne 4 года назад

Ehrman's incredulity about Craig's "statistical probability of the resurrection" is classic Bart.

@dja-bomb6397 5 лет назад

I find it telling that Dr Ehrman has the good will to allow comments on his channel while WLC disables the comments to this very same debate on his channel.

@archangecamilien1879 4 года назад

Oh my, haha...I had no idea this was Bart Ehrman's channel...oh my...I thought this was a random person's upload...

@archangecamilien1879 4 года назад

Hell...I didn't even know he would have a RU-vid channel...

@juanc.feliciano9507 4 года назад

Not only in this very debate but in all of his debates. He have it like in all of his debates. That's nothing.

@roboto5100 3 года назад

I think a good way to see the debate is that, there is definitely a Historian Jesus, but there hasn´t been found a body, so you have 2 options: option A, there are other explanations for that, like the body was taken etc etc. You have historical evidence to take that option. Option B God resurrected Jesus from the death, you have historical evidence to take that option. but neither you can prove or disprove one from other. You have to take a decision to wich you have evidence to support you.

@vincebuckley1499 4 года назад

"If I believe that the ocean is full of invisible unicorns and the ocean is the color of invisible unicorn pee, how can that NOT be the most likely explanation?" WLC

@notyou3191 4 года назад

Vince buckley… which unicorn you talking about? Biblical or Greek mythology. 1 exist and 1 doesn't.

@JWu-jt7fz 4 года назад

Then you will have to follow the probability mathematical model. What's the probability invisible unicorn pee relative to the probability of background and evidence for it? I'd say the background and evidence for it is close to null. Thus the probability of it occuring is likely infinitesimal

@colinc892 3 года назад

@@JWu-jt7fz yes! exactly like a resurrection

@Chomper750 4 года назад

WLC dismisses Apollonius as myths and legends post-Jesus deliberately constructed to compete with Christianity, using the same reasoning Noah's Flood is a myth and legend constructed to compete with the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh.

@jebus6kryst 7 лет назад

What?! Craig is defending his deity and not just the deistic deity if the Kalam? Well, this is the second Christian apologist I have seen defend Christianity instead of just a deistic deity. That means the Christian apologists have go the message that they need to step up and defend what they actually believe.

@kimbye1 5 лет назад

A miracle is by definition the least plausible explanaition for an event. Hume made this point a few hundred years ago, and it`s still the best put down argument for the resurrection.

@susanthroop7041 4 года назад

Not according to this presentation by Craig. He didn't use a miracle. He used 4 established historical facts.

@WimbledonEngland 4 года назад

@@susanthroop7041 he inferred a miracle when there are better explanations. Also, we know how stories get changed. So what got written down after decades as gospels was probably not even in this form. Are we to believe someone walked on water and raised the dead and says resurrected because someone wrote it down? There are so many examples of alleged miracles and we know all of them are rubbish so why think this is any different?

@unclefester9113 3 года назад

Important Debate (discussion ) Too bad the audio was so atrocious.

@johnpetkos5686 3 года назад

We need better footage than that. It's a really interesting feud, but you can't watch it.

@donaldhawkins3456 6 лет назад

mr ehrman your closing was as good as it get great job

@heinkapp4288 3 года назад

How annoying is that during the Q&A the Camara doesn't focus on the speakers😠

@Argeaux2 3 года назад

Does WLC EVER go second in a debate? I've yet to see it. He likes to go first so he can try to set out what the other side needs to do to "win".

@steveelim 5 лет назад

How can Craig claim to have a PhD and debate at such a banal level?

@Genjokoan 7 лет назад

Dear Zeus, it is painful to listen to WLC.

@noelpucarua2843 4 года назад

Hebrews 9:27 says ' It is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment". Did Lazarus die twice and is there historical evidence that he died only once or that he died twice?

@rextrinidad6646 4 года назад

I wonder what Dr Ehrman thinks of the possibility that Jesus did not actually die on the cross. I read that one possibility is that Jesus may have gone into a coma and then got revived subsequently.

@clementsingh3700 5 лет назад

If you are looking for intellectual honesty, Ehrman is Supreme!

@qqqmyes4509 4 года назад

1:28:48 Ehrman should have spent more time disputing the historical premises in Craig’s argument. He’s a better historian than philosopher. And I like his exposition of his counter-explanation of the family stealing his body. I think he does well to dispel Craig’s objections to it (1:29:36), and shows that not all plausible naturalistic explanations of his four premises (which Ehrman disputes the certainty of) have been exhausted.

@shawnchristophermalig4339 3 года назад

Are we not going to take a notice to some blatant comments who actually didn't watch the whole video? Dr. Ehrman argues mainly what makes this "historical" in the basis of category, then Craig defends. That's what actually happens. They both agree in their recent interview that the debate was just about the acclimation of that history being "a history". "it was a good discussion" - Craig & Erhman.

@xanthiny 7 лет назад

And the judge of this debate is untouchable to this reality, it is a matter for the after we die, until then one should believe or not believe, free will.

@nemdenemam9753 3 года назад

"we dont have access to string theory or parallel universes either" I feel like he doesnt truly understand what he is implying. If all he says is that God is a possible theory thats awaiting validation then welcome to the atheist group. Can someone clarify it as Im pretty unfamiliar with historical evidence. Are 5 sources from the same group considered 5 different sources in historical sciences? It seems like a ridiculous idea but I dont see people call Craig out on it. I wouldnt trust a peer reviewed paper if it was tested by only one interest group 5 times

@shawnbydalek4153 3 года назад

To clarify: the point is that the stories derive from different individuals, specifically 4 if we are talking about the synoptic gospels + acts; “Luke” also authored acts. The significance is theoretically the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, however (and don’t quote me on this because this is where I get fuzzy), I believe that Mark and Matthew share a common source, denoted as Q, Luke is an amalgam, and John is so theologically distinct and later than the others, you can ask any apologist with a shred of honesty and they will tell you John is an apologetic gospel and is where 90% of Christian theology flows (I am the way and truth and life, the Word made flesh, etc.) From the above, obviously the gospels are not primary sources, they are secondary, but the salient point is that they are unique generations of the same basic story (synoptic). They were not generated by a group of early Christians or a church for the purposes of conversion, but rather they are purported to be the account (testament) of those who knew, heard, or saw Jesus in his lifetime. I apologize if that might have seemed overly-simplistic; I am not presuming on your intelligence or anything like that! I just wanted to clarify all the things I suspected you might be asking about. Erhman has a lot of great resources on these topics, but I agree with you that it is weird it is never contended in a debate, but properly understood it is such a modest claim and is one of those things that apologists emphasize because it gets you a lot of mileage from people who don’t really understand what it means. It just sounds impressive.

@reeseexplains8935 3 года назад

Bart is very honest

@GeneticJulia 6 лет назад

I've watched a few debates against Craig and was very curious about how Ehrman would approach this from a biblical historian perspective. I'm a little disappointed by one aspect here and that is his characterization of historical research to be non-repeatable. That sounds too much to me like a validation of Ken Ham's separation between regular science and "origins or historical" science. I hope I misunderstood, but that's what it sounds like and that's a view I'd rather not see perpetuated.

@VJScope 6 лет назад

I have watched less than 20min of this debate so far, so I don't really know what he meant. However, a historical explanation has to follow what we know and can demonstrate about the natural world. If historians lowered their standards and accepted that miracles did happen, what stops them from accepting that Kim Jong-Il's birth was prophesied by swallow and marked by double rainbow and a new star, got 11 hole-in-ones in his first ever game of golf, could control weather, etc.? It is all in his official, state approved, autobiography and we can be sure at least that the guy existed. What about the claims about caesars or pharaohs divinity? Were they gods in flesh? How about Greek gods, demi-gods, monsters that defy taxonomy and known physical laws, etc.? Christians like to think that this is a bias towards their holy book, but the reality is that historians would have to believe contradictory claims if they lowered their standards of evidence - or they would have to be biased towards Christianity. Science isn't like theology. You can't pick and choose. You have to take it all in. That is why the standards are so high.

@pcl5636 4 года назад

I’m a Christian and have Been watching quite a few wlc debates recently during quarantine I thought this was the first one he clearly lost.

@pcl5636 4 года назад

@Apostate Pauly I haven't! I'll check it out thanks for the recommendation

@jordanduran964 4 года назад

WLC is more of a philosopher than a historian and this is a historical debate

@t7u5ebuvduhyye34t 3 года назад

@@jordanduran964 wlc is good to argue for a classical theist view of god. But not for the god of the bible

@joshuaphilip7601 3 года назад

@@t7u5ebuvduhyye34t what he's not a classical theist lmao

@shawnjohnson280 3 года назад

Watch craig/Bradley debate. It was painful to watch. Craig was first time shuddering and speechless.

@danielprime9436 3 года назад

Bible: Claims that there was an empty tomb, that Jesus Ressurected from the dead and that there were eye witnesses Debate topic: What is the Historical evidence to support these Biblical claims? Craig: These Biblical claims

@burningbaal 3 года назад

That'd be a cool retort if that's actually a debate you could point to, but I've seen WLC discuss the historical evidene to support the key Biblical claims and it looks nothing like your cute little 3-word rhetorical trope. Have you seen Craig take up that topic? please show me the reference for where his entire defense of the claim can be reasonably summed up in those 3 words. otherwise, you're just sniping. Go somewhere else, troll

@danielprime9436 3 года назад

Keith McKinley My comment is entirely accurate to Craigs views. The Bible is not evidence for the Bibles claims. You cannot prove theologic claims by using theology. Not a single historian ever wrote about the tomb being empty, yet Craig believes it as a historical fact. He uses the Bible as his source for his “4 facts”. He believes the empty tomb is a historical fact because the majority of Christian theologans believe it’s a historical fact. No self respecting Christian would actually deny that the tomb was empty. So that is not evidence. And before you give me the names of a few athiest who believe the empty tomb is historical, just know most of them actually don’t believe that. Not a single part of my comment was a lie. The idea of the Ressurection comes from Biblical theology. Craig then uses the same Biblical theology to try and prove the Biblical theology. He didn’t provide any historical documents to prove the ressurection because they don’t exsist.

@danielprime9436 3 года назад

Keith McKinley He obviously didn’t say three words. He said hundreds of words straight from the Bible. Which are the Biblical claims I was refering to. I was not trolling. The snobs that follow Craig think any form of humor is fallacious. Nothing I said was wrong. Let me break it down for you if you don’t understand. 1. Were does the idea of the reserrurection come from? : The Bible 2. What documents does Craig use to defend this idea? : The Bible

@davemagaldadze 7 лет назад

Not only does Craig generally say stupid things, he almost never retracts his arguments even when their falsity is clearly explained to him. He is an eloquently stubborn goon.

@cision5007 7 лет назад

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. This reminds me of creationist debates. Reason can be abandoned at any moment because "magic."

@deimossoulcrush13 6 лет назад

He just uses big words and avoids answering directly.

@b1bbscraz3y 6 лет назад

he seriously brought out equations and formulas to prove god to people in church...if ever you needed an example of irony

@BlGGESTBROTHER 5 лет назад

Davit Magaldadze Reminds me of my dad...unfortunately.

@arbur4746 4 года назад

that's why he is feared and respected by most atheists... what I just said is a fact, by the way, but something tells me you'll ignore that fact, as well. Look at your statements, emotional hatred you bare towards the man says it all...

@Graphiclee63 4 года назад

Why is it so hard to think that God (the one that created the universe) could walk on water, rise from the dead etc.?

@qqqmyes4509 4 года назад

10:50 How do we know that the disciples had Every predisposition to disbelieve Jesus’s resurrection? Perhaps there was group think, forming a group identity, positive reinforcement among these believers that reinforced the belief/mass hysteria as they reinterpreted the OT messiah. 1:31:00 Ehrman explains how they found reason to believe Jesus would be vindicated via resurrection. It sounds too strong to say they had Every predisposition to not believe Jesus rose. And did Jesus predict his resurrection to them?

@francois-mariearouet6469 4 года назад

Exactly what I had in mind.

@I-Need-Saving 4 года назад

Yes. Jesus told his disciples on more than 1 occasion that he would die and rise again. The disciples at the time just didn’t understand what Jesus was saying and what he meant by it.

@MiguelGAncin-fy7im 7 лет назад

Craig's reasoning is inframental. And it seems he finds it so fabulous. How to mix Math and History and get something that is worse than em isolated. Is there any antonymous for Sinergia?

@Calum2244 6 лет назад

This video is also on Dr. Craigs channel, but the comment section is disabled. I wonder why he did that😂

@darthwukong8754 5 лет назад

@TheCosmicWarrior Yea, yea already said that... not true btw

@maggieliu9561 3 года назад

I’ve been watching a series of Dr.Craig’s debate. He definitely has some smart and convincing arguments but it frustrates me so much because he never answer the opponent’s questions directly. And also, that’s not how probability works...

@pdxcorgidad 4 года назад

Did....did WLC say it's more probable a person rose from the dead than that people stole a body? Did he REALLY?

@adamgarrettJn15 4 года назад

Have you ever stolen a body with armed guards keeping watch?

@shawnjohnson280 3 года назад

Why would armed guards be guarding a grave? If they allowed his body to be placed their what were they guarding? Sounds like bs.

@SuperGinamo 3 года назад

Personally I have thought in the past that these ancient people would not recognize if someone was actually dead. You had bells and other ways of notification of someone buried alive in the Middle Ages. Sad to say but in our slightly more modern world we have had cadavers sit straight up at the morgue.

@leondiegodelpino 5 лет назад

i got secondhand embarrassment with him trying to calculate historical probablity lool

@roarblast7332 4 года назад

And look, comments. No comments on the Christian channels. Look, fellow believers, you are not going to bring people to God by denying another human beings agency. Discussion must take place.

@natureboihikes162 7 лет назад

Mr. Erhman: I greatly appreciate the efforts you have made to debate on a historical plain, as I myself am an agnostic. What I have enjoyed most is your ability to simplify an argument and keep the focus of the debate on point so as not to let it devolve into a pissing contest, as has so often been the case in debates I have watched (pardon my expression). I am currently in your book "Forged: Writing in the Name of God-Why the New Testament Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are" and can say that I am thoroughly entertained by it. I went to seminary through Global University for two years and dropped out, but i kept doing studies in the Hebrew and Greek texts and found that the bible itself was full of problems, in addition to the conflicts between the text and modern evangelical teaching. I think I have sufficiently flattered you, but I again say thank you, most especially for giving us a voice.

@williambrewer 4 года назад

Act 26:8 KJV Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?

@danielgibson8799 3 года назад

William Lane Craig is to New Testament scholarship as Lee Strobel is to journalism. He builds a straw man on stupid evangelical talking points and calls it Christ resurrected based on the facts.

@Morganfrost 5 лет назад

The easy (and plausible) explanation for why a member of the Sanhedrin would choose to bury Jesus is that, according to Jewish law, an unburied body is an affront to God. It doesn't matter whether the Sanhedrin liked Jesus or didn't like him; they would not want a Jew to go without a burial. The problem with the fact that multiple people have had visions of Jesus is that, well, people have visions. Multiple people have had visions of Mary, Buddha, and various other historical and religious figures. If the existence of people claiming to have visions supporting their religions, then pretty much all religions are true. Finally, empty tombs are rather common; resurrected people, not so much.

@thuscomeguerriero 4 года назад

The New Testament is clear that the appreances of the risen Jesus are not "visions". The appearances are of a man once dead made alive again bodily.

@jeffersonianideal 5 лет назад

William Lane Craig will take his rightful place as the greatest performing illusionist of all-time. Nobody can magically pull as many items out of their tight ass as Craig does, and with so little effort.

@adamgarrettJn15 4 года назад

What tricks of his can you reveal?

@TheCheapPhilosophy 4 года назад

46:39 change "Jesus' Resurrection" for "alien abduction", better yet: "supernatural abduction". In order to disprove that... (paste Craig's argument here).

@susanthroop7041 4 года назад

I like Craig's presentation; it was reasonable and rational and easy to understand. His is the correct one and he won the debate.

@jerrymathewninan6739 3 года назад

@@susanthroop7041 Not even close. His use of probabilities is completely wrong. It can also be used to prove that Zeus or Cthulhu is real, which you obviously dont agree with.

@ramigilneas9274 3 года назад

@@susanthroop7041 Nope, historians don’t believe that there ever was an empty tomb and that it was a later addition to the myth.😂

@BangNong 5 лет назад

Thank you for your honest in studying New Testament, Prof. Bart Ehrman. Your works are valuable source for any person who seek the truth.

@seemasalman1242 4 года назад

Hey buddy mind your own business we muslims have nothing to do with this

@frozenwolf8458 3 года назад

In Dr. Ehrman's opening statement, he equivocates between the general probability of something happening, and probability for a given explanation of certain facts. He says that historians seek the most probable explanation of the facts, and says that miracles are, by definition, incomprehensibly improbable occurences and thus any explanation would be more probable than one which appeals to the miraculous. But, wait a minute, the argument is not about the probability of miracles, like the resurrection, but whether it is the most probable, and best explanation of the facts.

@hongotedesco8931 3 года назад

Nothing inconsistent about that. He's just saying, miracles are highly improbable, so it's unlikely the resurrection happened. So no, if you're saying a miracle is the "best explanation of the facts", in particular when we're talking about something that happened 2k years ago.

@thatfirstone 3 года назад

You are a very low quality William Craig copycat.

@qqqmyes4509 4 года назад

Why does Craig speak in such absolutes, saying a “fact” has been “established” (like Jesus’s burial in a tomb)- when he really means probable (or plausible) claims that are supported by not-infallible historical evidence and weakened by some opposing information (like the commonality of unmarked mass graves)? Also- “any later legendary account would Certainly have made make disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb [as opposed to women]”. False, no this is not certain, for perhaps women and slaves would more often add spices to the dead body than men did, so it makes for a more believable story to have women find the empty tomb than male disciples. And perhaps the male disciples had skipped town, so Mark accommodated that in his story. And perhaps Mark was trying to indicate a message. Craig shows his hubris when confidently stating that Certainly it would have been men that found the tomb empty if the story were made up.

@Oners82 4 года назад

Why do people like you feel the need to flood the comment section with so many posts? It just makes you look like a troll.

@roarblast7332 4 года назад

Oners82 lol. Ouch. That’s a painful lack of awareness there.

@ramigilneas9274 3 года назад

All of Craigs "facts“ don’t exist outside of the stories of the gospels. In reality it’s extremely unlikely that Jesus was put in a tomb at all. Also, if the story said that male disciples found the empty tomb then Apologists like Craig would claim that this must be true because it was the job of women and slaves to anoint dead bodies and it would have been extremely embarrassing for men. Of course Apologists would also explain away the fact that the text says that the disciples fled and were hiding somewhere.

@tedgrant2 4 года назад

We know that bodies quickly deteriorate after death, especially the brain, so how can we explain the resurrection stories about Lazarus, Jesus, Hal Jordan, Ben Reilly, Sleeping Beauty etc ? That's a really hard question that many great minds have puzzled over. Will we ever know the truth ? It seems unlikely, given the poor evidence available.

@HarleyDrummer1 7 лет назад

Did the cameraman fall asleep during the Q&A?

@laurameszaros9547 3 года назад

Great presentation by Bart D. Ehrmann. Just subscribed.

@stchew49 7 лет назад

Backfilling the Empty Tomb (A poem detailing what might have happened at the burial of Christ) Let us then endeavor to backfill Gaps in the Jesus-Resurrection story And a-nil of profit, bias or begotten ill, Shear it of its retrofitted glory - Suppose, Joseph and Nicodemus Arm-bore in linen white as nimbus A covered body born of Mary’s womb To the newly hewn tomb As from afar, wary of tomorrow, The disciples, fraught with sorrow And wanting wit mercurial - Wist not the mock and decoy burial - Now, James did oddly but duly relate “Faith without work is dead” - Suppose he, born too of Mary’s womb, Slept that Passover in the tomb - Dare you ask, Christian truth-juggler - Who played decoy in the retrofitted myth? My head urges yours: Go figure! Let the improbable be done away with! Lawrence Chew 29 October 2014

@blacksabbath1022 4 года назад

I like WLC's "facts" lol It's like finding out there's no land of Oz and then wondering where the yellow brick road leads to.

@BRNRDNCK 4 года назад

In this debate and other places, Bart Ehrman concedes all of the facts. You might want to actually listen to the debate and other material before acting smart in the Yt comments.

@ramigilneas9274 3 года назад

@@BRNRDNCK Well, those facts don’t exist outside of the gospels. Historians provisionally agree that they are probably true because those are just mundane irrelevant claims. -Jesus died by crucifixion. -One or more of his followers had some unspecified experiences(dreams, visions or post bereavement hallucinations) that led them to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. -His followers preached their interpretation of the message of Jesus. -Paul, who claims that he persecuted Christians and claims that he had a vision of Jesus became the most import figure in the Christian cult. Very mundane claims, none of them lead to: Therefore the story is true.😂

@shimmy2425 3 года назад

lol what the hell I'm listening to Dr. Craig's probability section and am just as lost as I was in calculus class once upon a time.

@bluestarindustrialarts7712 5 лет назад

@ 1:49:40 Classic Ehrman. "Im sorry but I can't believe we are having a discussion on the statistical probability.....of resurrection of Jesus...of God. A room full of academics would howl us off the stage....maybe in the school that you teach at...: Bart's humanity and genuine nature are priceless. WLC is about the best apologists can offer. Bart is essentially telling him what I say to all my friends who are religious.....It is a matter of faith. Once you step outside of faith and try to "prove" things related to that faith, even a very smart person can appear like an idiot. On the flip side of this, I often wonder about how strong is the faith of believers who feel they need to perform gymnastics to "prove the Judeo/Christian, Hindu, or Muslim god is true"

@fukpoeslaw3613 4 года назад

Someone dies and then gets alive again. You really have to think about that?

@MIKEDIAMONDZ 4 года назад

I m chritians and i believe in jesus ... erhman does make s a lot of sense .. he is a chalenge for chritianity in a good way ! A good test for our faith

@ernestmonroe2240 7 лет назад

I find it amazing just how Craig maintains that God is an all powerful intelligent designer and fine-tuner. Throughout the old testament, God directed that things be written down so that they wouldn't be forgotten. He was so zealous about this that he personally wrote stuff down, namely the Ten Commandments. Given this point about writing stuff down, God sent Jesus to earth to perform the most important task since he created Heaven and Earth. Yet, neither God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit (which is responsible for bringing things to people's memory), the angels nor any other member of the heavenly hosts, directed or reminded(?) Jesus to choose a scribe to write down his life story and all that he said and did. Come to think about it, was there ever a bigger blunder? That colossal omission has cost untold millions and maybe even billions of innocent people their lives. We haven't heard a word from Jesus on the matter. Craig is making a fortune off of Jesus' heavenly failure, however. Speaking of being omnipotent, Jesus said in Mat. 28:18 that all power in heaven and earth have been given to him. Did anyone tell the Jews about this? I guess God retired and so the Jews had better look for a replacement. That being the case, I have to wonder, why is it that he, Jesus, has taken no action to correct his mega blunder. All he has to do is think of it and the world will have a heavenly correctly printed bible. Muhammad and Joseph Smith got stuff. Then, the two hundred plus error-filled versions we are having to deal with can be recycled into something better and more useful. I would ask Craig, isn't it time we be treated to our own miracle? We should be sick and tired of shouting over Moses' and Pharaoh' multiple miracles and Joseph's (Mary husband) virginal dreams.

@arandompanda1349 4 года назад

Whats your point? If Jesus poofed a bible out of nowhere would you be convinced?

@markvalkrin3128 4 года назад

@@arandompanda1349 a good start

@colinc892 3 года назад

@Shae Tallent you mispelled "christian"

@fredball8240 3 года назад

There are hundreds of YT videos of bright, rational people who attest to the miracle of their conversion.

@ramigilneas9274 3 года назад

@@fredball8240 You probably mean conversions to Islam.😉

@mnguardianfan7128 6 лет назад

Trying to say that there is a non-zero mathematical probability of a SUPERNATURAL event, let alone a significant probably in any way, is seriously bizarre.

@darthwukong8754 5 лет назад

Why