Bart Ehrman vs. Mike Licona 2009 Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Bart Ehrman debates Mike Licona a second time on the question "Can Historians Prove Jesus Rose from the Dead?" This debate took place at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC on April 2nd, 2009. The two previously debated the same topic a year earlier at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Book listed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/...
Book listed on Bart Ehrman's Main website: www.bartdehrman...
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.
Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this video without express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman is strictly prohibited.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
I love the passion of Prof. Ehrman!! He is a great man! Thank you, sir, for your easy to understand history lessons which I really needed!
That is an interesting statement. Why do you think so? :)
As a university student in my seventies I recognize the quality of this debate and am impressed more by logic than by faith. I thank both participants, and have learned a great deal. As an atheist since adulthood, I think we have no clear evidence that any supernatural power is real. We are stuck with our daily experiences, and this is sufficient to make my life fulfilling. Thank you to all responsible for this video.
One has to admire Bart Ehrman’s patience in doing these debates. I am not sure someone like say Christopher Hitchens, would have put up with the arguments Dr. Licona presented here. I can very easily imagine Hitchens calling him out as a fraud (or worse) to his face. Dr. Licona’s whole presentation and his arguments really make a mockery of historical and even logical analysis. He is blatantly disingenuous, he distorts facts, and he intertwines empirical scrutiny with Christian theology - all while saying he is not doing so. It is revolting. His performance is a treatise on how to lie, distort the facts, all while appearing to be erudite and professorial. No, Hitchens would not have put up with this fraud - which probably explains why Dr. Ehrman is invited to debate in places like the Southern Evangelical Seminary. He treats Dr. Licona with the respect normally reserved for those who are not blatant frauds. What I am not really sure about is if this is a good thing or not. Is Dr. Ehrman inadvertently helping the fraudulent Dr. Licona - and others in the Seminary who aspire to be religious frauds - to refine their skills? Skills, I would add, that will come handy when these guys go out in a campaign to convert the ignorant? Or does Dr. Ehrman really believes he is advancing the noble cause of history by engaging in scholarly debate with disingenuous frauds that are only taken seriously within the confines of the fanatic religious South? I think the fact that Dr. Erhman comes from the evangelical tradition skews his feelings on engaging with the likes of Dr. Licona, even when the debate is really a charade. Or maybe, just maybe he thinks those who are honest to themselves will see the gaping holes in logic and historicity and perhaps come around to reason? We can hope.
Mike Licona is an amazing dancer!
At least Ehrman has the guts to let the people write down here whatever their opinions are .... Lane Craig et als dont . That is very telling to point out who is pursuing true science, and who blatant and empty rhetoric for gullible minds.
Bart is the man.
Bart -- nothing against him -- is uninformed. Even though he's a professor of this stuff, his thinking is flawed and he doesn't know basic facts about the New Testament.
So -- again, nothing against him -- but no, he is not the man. He is confused and wrong.
But if you don't want to accept what I'm saying, then how about this -- you pick one of his arguments and I'll show you how it breaks down. Pick one -- even his strongest argument.
@@Matthias53787 ok the bible contradicts itself and crucifiction is baseless.
@@Matthias53787 your comment made me feel sorry for you.
Licona has no right to call himself a historian
Bart will always be my hero!
As a physicist I feel insulted by the claim that science is based on nondetectable phenomenons. Of course, not all theories have been empirically proven, but science community constantly works to that end, proving and disproving different theories. Religion is making assumptions which will never be possible to verify. It's a huge difference.
Licona was knocked out at the 40:11 minute. The debate should not have continued after that moment.
Bart Erhman destroys another one.
are you sure about that? coz i beg to differ
yep, i see this as another victory by bart
I see it that way
Blah blah blah, keep believing in your fairy tale god.
they ended up kicking this one out of Christianity recently
Licona is NOT a historian, definitely not a scientist, but a theologian trying to muddy general historical facts to please an audience of evangelical Christians. Clearly does not understand logical thinking. I have not read work by either. Let's not confuse logic and facts with faith. A question to the audience, do you believe only in the "miracles" of Jesus or all "miracles" of antiquity?
Mike Licona lots of people wake up from coma all the time without prayers . poor proof for the resurrection and that's irrelevant to why there's discrepancies in the gospels
Mike brought a knife to a gun fight
A plastic knife at that
Thank you for uploading this sir. I just added it to a playlist. I will be enjoying the debate tonight!
Licona was literally executed ....
Agnes Philomena Jesus hate Gentile! He was only for Israel!
How can Licona use the titanic as an example? The witnesses at the scene of the sinking ship were regular beings. However, we are told the Gospel writers are inspired by God and I am assuming they're filled with the Holy Spirit as they were writing their material. This does not strike me to be a sane argument let alone a scholarly one Mr. Licona!
Exactly, if it is inerrant and inspired by God, why would there be discrepancies in the first place? By admitting they are there, aren't they denying the divine nature of the gospels?
I am just curious mike how reliable is eyewitness testimony in general?
How do we even know that the historical Jesus was on the cross?
When you try to use history to "prove" the resurrection its illogical.
All you have are stories about people seeing visions. You don't know if they really saw visions. People see visions of Aliens, Dead people, flying unicorns, this isn't proof - people could just be lying or seeing things.
You don't even know if the supernatural exists and if it favors christianity and not some other religion. How does Craig Keener know that the supernatural favors christianity and not buddhism. Buddhist do exorcism and have miraculous healing.
How do you know that devils weren't deceiving people. How do you explain other religion's claims like Buddhist, hindu, islam, scientology etc.
As deuteronomy 13-1:4 from the Hebrew Bible - miracles are not a sign of proof.
The only reason you have "faith" is 4 reasons:
1) New testament is authentic and 100% truthful and reliable - You don't have the original "inspired" wording. And how do you demonstrate someone is inspired. If you can't demonstrate the bible is infallible/inerrant and authentic, then why do you trust it?
2) Hebrew Bible "prophecizes" the christian concept of messiah/triune yahweh. Both are untrue. It's up to interpretation and even majority of christian scholars hold to the view that isaiah 53 refers to Israel. However, no serious person holds to the view that hebrew bible teaches the christian concept of messiah or triune godhead.
3) Your inference to best hypothesis which you copied from gary habermas and william lane craig is a joke. These historical "facts"... Lol these facts are just stories. Can you prove these actually occurred - no you always have inherent doubt and leaves you to have faith.
4) You grew up as a christian and you want to believe christianity is real. So these stories you read in the bible you take literally true. Let me ask were the saints in matthew 27 resurrection real or apocrophyal imagery?
william wilson, if there were no discrepancies, you would say it was redacted or that the authors were in cahoots. But it is clear that 1) they were written independently, and 2) no one redacted them to make them all agree, as is commonly claimed by those who haven't thought the topic through. Paradoxically, discrepancies actually add to the texts' credibility.
This was a great debate! Thanks Mr. Ehrman :-)
Lol at 49.50 when he compares the possibility of an external agent helping Jesus to walk on water to him holding his son up by the side of the pool so he could walk on water.
What is the problem of saying I believe it happened but I can't prove it? Why do people get so antsy about that? Just admit it and go on believing. If your beliefs are so shaky they need proof that is your problem not historian's
Three indisputable facts? Damn, I was smelling blood in the water when Licona kept pounding down that argument. I can't believe he doubled-down even after being shown his error.
I know right... Bart apparently forgot how to count past one.
OK, When Licona stoops to ad hominem attacks he destroys his own arguments (as feeble as those are).
I don't know how I never found you before, the kinds of evidences you listed at first are exactly how Muslims collect the narrations of the prophet ( almost same criteria ), it is like I was attending a Science of Hadeeth lecture!!!! I am Muslim and you have my biggest respect for how intellectual you are, I feel you just want to know the truth when I listen to you. Also you are very polite unlike other Atheists (not all of them tho ) which is awesome.
When Mike did his debate with Matt Dillahunty, his "EVIDENCE" was hearsay...
I like Bart Ehrmans work but I wish he wouldn't waste his time debating these dullards. Hearing him discuss, rather than debate, with other historians would be far more interesting.
Mike Licona begins with the statement that he is biased when he says that a wrong decision may be for eternity.
That is the ultimate expression of fear. His reasoning is clouded by this, he tries to justify it subconciously with his prospect of eternal life and bliss.
On top of that he explains reasoning by upbringing and traditions and many factors. That is not reasoning but opposing reason.
Fear is a major issue for all Christians. The doctrine of eternal hell for the unbeliever is used to keep anyone from questioning "god". Although a close examination of Jesus own words does not echo the doctrine. Jesus stressed to follow his teachings. Paul was a Greco-Roman. If you research the environment of the day; Christians were not good subjects for the empire. It's my opinion that the strict doctrine was a deliberate political-religious move by Paul; today we would call him a paid state agent. Imo I also believe this to be the case with Constantine who merged religion and government. Kind of like "we can't beat them so we best join them". Again there is evidence that the Gnostic Christians fought this new super power claiming foul play. If the Gnostics didn't have something of value; WHT did the Roman Empire declare war on them and destroy all writings. Christianity has a bloody and murderous past- worse than any other religion. Although it's highly probable and scholars agree that Jesus lived and was a great spiritual figure- I do believe he has an unknown impact on humanity because Jesus is present and held in secret regard behind closed doors by certain unsavory groups. And why the deliberate destruction and falsifying of the history? I cant let go of the search for the "wth they are hiding"? I am a second guess-leave no stone UNturned kind of mind . For an excellent course on the culture during biblical times, go to yt channel Yale University. Free education from the best.
Christianity has this bloody past, but it is not the religion with the bloodiest past.
They all are still competing unless defeated by more murderous religions or just by people who realized that their leaders were the worst possible solution to their problems.
Today they are in most parts of the world.
The existence of one single person "THE JESUS" is what I doubt.
I think the many contradicting stories, part of which may even have a true kernel, make it possible that the biblical Jesus is a compound figure of several rebels, "gurus" and jewish sectirians like the Nazarenes added to the miracles done by Osiris (he raised Lazarus and was torn to pieces and resurrected himself), Dionisus (died, resurrected, turned water into wine), and many more.
At that time most people believed in many Gods existing but none being the only one, so they had easy access to all myths.
Hellmouth Isnogod I agree with near everything you said but it's been a hard search to find any war or group that has a bloodied past than the Church, i.e. Christianity. Seems I constantly trip over the Church in every war I've researched- including Fascist Mussolini whom the pope gave his blessing for his campaigns. Why? Because the pope saw the destruction of countries as a grand opportunity to send 8n missionaries for relief and give them hope in Jesus Christ. Ethiopia was one such prize the church scrapped off the land. This includes Hitler- who wasn't so far removed from the Vatican. One must look for books written in the 1800's- at estate and book sales where they haven't been digitized and edited. Authors were calling the Pope the Beast way back- for his relationships with unsavory war mongers. Political-fascist-eccleeseastical seems to be the recipe. Just my findings.
just now superstition killed the granddaughter of Morgan Freeman.
Not only christianism, but the idiotic belief in supernatural beings which are connected to religions kill people.
+Shieena Living Waters people that do killing in the name of Christianity, dose not mean their Christian ,they may claim to be a Christian. Jesus Christ never taught volicence, you can't find a teaching anywhere in the new testament that says it's okay to be volition,"not one". Jesus teaches to love your neighbors and pray for those that do you wrong. to be a Christian means you follow the teachings of Jesus, and Jesus never ever ever taught volicence!
Mike Licona speaks like he went to the women store to pick out his wife.
Licona: what a joke. What a clown
Dr. Bart won this debets absolotly .
Hahahaha Ehrman's face at 50:00 is priceless
+tx "Dafuq did I just hear??"
he got a headache, probably, after hearing that illogical argument.
i think its called the antological arguement!
it reminds me of the arguement if it can exist & its necessary it does.
had to laugh too
I can see why Bart wants permission to re-post.
This Licona is not doing Christianity any favours. He appears confused and unintelligent.
Licona consistently and either fraudulently or stupidly omits the word "claims" from Ehrman's statements that Paul *claims* to have seen Jesus (on the road to Damascus), and that the Disciples *claim* to have seen the risen Jesus.
If nothing else, that alone invalidates not only Licona's argument but his claim to be a seeker of truth.
AnarchoRepublican What's wrong with "visions" and "something"?
AnarchoRepublican OK, I'm confused.
"Nonsense" typically means "I think you're stupidly wrong". When commenting on this type of video, it typically means, "I'm a Christian, and you're going to hell." But you seem to think that I wasn't harsh enough on Licona.
What am I missing?
I think you just proved to be a seeker of ignorance with that comment...
Tom Brooks /you just proved to be a seeker of ignorance/
How so?
If you guys who think this was a waste of Barts time actually watched this and listened and still speak with such vitriol there's a problem with your critical thinking skills. Mike's open statement alone is enough to raise serious questions. And I think Bart would agree.
I really love your picture :) noon is an awesome letter
honestly, Ehrman is a great speaker and an even better scholar. To say that he is the anti-Christ is perhaps a way of saying he is brilliant.
Now you go watch "How Jesus Became God"
"He even admitted..." You certainly read his book as you do with the bible, interpret explicit statements by vague unclear verses rather than vice versa. I dare you go watch: "Who Changed the Bible & Why? Diane Rehm Show" on Prof Ehrman's channel. Let's see you hear that those changes in the ORIGINAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS not in your english bibles have significant impact on Christian doctrine.
Of course the differences you have in your english bible are in line with Christian doctrine, if they weren't your monarch rulers and church fathers would immediately remove them.
Godamnit I love Dr. Erhman's personality.
Bart beat the brakes of mike...AGAIN! SMH😃
Bart Ehrman Destroyed licona
1:50:44 This is what the moderator is talking about when he says "special commentary":
Bart Ehrman "The seminary had arranged that immediately after our debate faculty members from the school would get up for ten minutes each to explain to the audience why I was wrong in everything I had just said - in my absence!! Ai yai yai. I don’t know what it is about these evangelical schools, but sometimes they drive me crazy."
Evangelicals act like they want to have fair and balanced debates that stand on their own merit and allow the audience to decide--uncertainty and all, but what they really want is a forum that allows for the preservation of their literally interpreted faith at all costs. It feels seedy and desperate and shows their true colors.
Most of them have to stay in their bubble, it would be too unsafe outside... :P
Interesting that Mike Licona referenced the appendix, it's a leftover and redundant organ from our distant past, potentially fatal too. So much for biblical chronology and a perfect designer....
I don't know how Dr. Ehrman puts up with this stuff. He's obviously passionate about the truth, but banging your head against the wall like this? I hope he's been well reimbursed for his time.
Your ideas about the appendix are twenty years out of date. it is no longer considered vestigial.
Pick on somebody your own size Bart - Licona is not a worthy adversary for you :)
you cant prove anything supernatural or miraculous historically
Bart is a tough debater... Whether or not I agree or disagree with anyone, I'm glad we can talk about it and discuss it.
Licona, like all apologists, doesn't know the difference between stories and historical facts.
Licona: "He still agrees with me on these three facts, he hasn't disputed those." Liar! Ehrman just spent 15 minutes disputing those "3 facts" which are actually only 1 fact. I have lost all respect for Licona, at least present information truthfully. Ehrman SMOKED HIM!
LOL! Hey fellas over here... I think we found another one that can't count past one. (pointing)
AnarchoRepublican 1. Why would the fact that Jesus died by crucifixion be proof that he was resurrected? The Romans crucified thousands of people and that doesn't mean they were resurrected. This "fact" is irrelevant and easily dismissed.
2. The Apostles claimed to see Jesus and 3. Paul claimed to see Jesus. Those two "facts" should be one fact: People claimed to see Jesus. Otherwise, why doesn't Licona say the 12 Apostles seeing Jesus is equivalent to "12 facts" (or 11 Apostles if you discount Matthias). They were 12 separate people after all. Why would one man's dream about Jesus be worth the same as 12 eye-witness accounts?
Briavel1 People seeing Jesus and Paul seeing Jesus are two different facts because they are recorded in two different books at two different times in two different contexts. The people recorded in point 1. do not include Paul in point 2. because he was not historically there at that time. They are also recorded in two different Biblical texts.
I'm surprised you guys actually seem to have this much of a problem with this issue. A grade school child could see the difference here.
Tom Brooks Well at least you don't contest that the crucifixion is not evidence of resurrection.
How you guys think that Paul's dream is evidence of Jesus coming back from the dead is beyond me. People dream about all sorts of deities, are you going to say those dreams are proof of their existence?
So really, the only "fact" you guys have is the testimony of the Apostles. Even if you believe what was written actually happened, numerous studies and statistics prove the unreliability of eye witness testimony. As an evangelical, how do you explain the numerous mass visions of catholic saints (some involving thousands of people)? You don't believe in saints, so why are people seeing them?
Of course, just because an ancient book said something happened doesn't mean it actually did. The writer of Matthew had a motive (remember, the first Gospel Mark doesn't mention the Apostles saw a resurrected Jesus), and that motive was to explain why their "Messiah" died, and to convince and convert as many people to their small sect as possible, so of course they would write up something as awe-inspiring as a resurrection narrative to make people believe (which wasn't an original story plot btw, resurrection is a common theme in the ancient world).
Your religion was already disproved thousands of years ago. Jesus said he would return within a generation (about 100 years), and he didn't. Yet you guys have desperately clung to this ancient myth and continue to use all your strength to rationalize why it still makes sense to believe in it.
Briavel1 "Your religion was already disproved thousands of years ago. Jesus said he would return within a generation (about 100 years), and he didn't. "
So before I give you a very reasonable explanation for your claim of Jesus not returning in 100 years, are you going to lay down some guidelines to concede your point or do you have other stipulations?
I just want to see if I'm going to waste anymore time with you on this topic.
Is shouting supposed to make something true?
It's a presentation technique used by many lecturers because it's difficult to concentrate on a long speech given without passion or emphases.
Seriously!
I dun no, have you gone to church on Sunday to listen to a preacher?
How can a resurrection not be considered _ad hoc_ as an explanation?
Seriously.
+Mattias Sollerman It depends on the worldview that you are bringing to the question. If you subscribe to philosophical naturalism and thus believe that miracles can never occur, then, of course, you would not accept the resurrection as an explanation under any circumstances. If, on the other hand, you believe that there is more to reality than merely "the natural" and that higher dimensions can act on nature to produce miracles, then the theory that an objectively real person appeared to the disciples, whom they sincerely believed to be Jesus, rather than the 'appearance' being a mass hallucination, then the resurrection is a perfectly valid explanation.
+Al Gray Nonsense, truth is independent of your philosophy. The resurrection simply can not be established by evidence to justify believe….The END
All the rest are mind mansturbation Theist do to mask their gullibility…to them selves
Kostas Spiliotopoulos Likewise truth is also independent of your philosophy. In fact, the philosophy of naturalism, which is the basis of atheism, cannot even explain the concept of truth itself. How could it? The idea that mind is reducible to brain, which is nothing more than a complex chemical arrangement, is absurd as a cause of the means by which we seek to understand reality. You talk about "mind masturbation". What irony! If philosophical naturalism is true then all reason is nothing more than "mind masturbation" by definition. Reason would simply be whatever chemical reactions are taking place within the physical brain.
You accuse theists of gullibility, but if you actually understood your own view of reality, and grasped its implications, then you would be ashamed of making such an accusation. Those who think that all aspects of reality can only be explained by means of matter really need an education in epistemology.
Your view of reality cannot explain reason itself, never mind free will, moral responsibility, consciousness and even the basis of the scientific method, which relies on certain a priori ideas being objectively true.
You can call me gullible as much as you like. I prefer evidence - proper evidence (not the kind of biased and limited view of evidence that you refer to).
+Al Gray Truth is whatever works in a given environment ...Simple as that. It doesn't depend in a world view ...Maybe your world view is running through a cliff you fly ...that doesn't mean you will not fall.
The first rule on making an successful experiment is ....Be as neutral to the experiment as possible....NOT as you suggest ...Bring your world view to the experiment.
You say:
(whom they sincerely believed to be Jesus, rather than the 'appearance'
being a mass hallucination, then the resurrection is a perfectly valid
explanation.)
Its exactly as if you said:
(Kids ho believe in Santa ...Are perfectly valid to assume Gifts down of the Christmas tree are from Santa) NO they are NOT.
Kostas Spiliotopoulos "Truth is whatever works in a given environment ...Simple as that."
Yeah, 'simple' is exactly the word to describe this comment (although 'simplistic' would be slightly more accurate).
The pragmatic and utilitarian view of knowledge can easily be debunked. Lies work, that is why people lie. Errors produce effects and therefore can 'work'. Furthermore, the entire pragmatic scientific method can only function on the basis of certain truths, which have to be accepted as 'givens'. They cannot be empirically tested. One of these ideas is the universality and consistency of the laws of physics.
But let's suppose you are right. OK. So belief in God and belief in miracles WORKS for billions of people. Ergo... it is true. Case closed!
Licona goes off for 5 minutes or more on bs. He knows he's gonna get smoked so he goes for the old everybody has bias routine lmao
God is the mechanism by which Jesus was raised from the dead. Historically speaking, plausibility is entirely determinate on a mechanism. This went way over Mikes head.
I cant believe im hearing Licona admit that some Gospel writers might have changed some texts for theological reasons! Does this not pose an ethical question? How often was this method used or replicated throughout the New Testament to perhaps prove another point?? Maybe the peculiar I AM statement that is only found in John is an insertion? Let our imagination drift and carry us very far!
This was a waste of Bart's time.....
Why do Christians think someone died for you 2000 years and took all your sins. How is that logic
The pathetic attempts the apologists make to try and justify their presuppositions are becoming tiresome.
At 00:16:00 Mike says that Paul's vision was not a hallucination, when according to the New Testament it was the very definition of a hallucination. He saw something that others could not (even if it was caused magically by Jesus).
And last of all he was seen of me also … (1 Cor. 15:8 KJV)
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7 KJV)
Of course this is pedantic because, like most of their writings, it is clearly allegorical.
how come people with Paul heard a voice if it was just a personal hallucination for Paul himself.
Ephraim Hills
A hallucination is something that one person senses that others cannot. According to the Bible, they had a shared auditory experience while Paul had a visual hallucination.
To answer your question literally; how come they heard a voice? They didn't. It's fiction that was written to illustrate a philosophy.
Lugh Summerson that sound like a double standard. One you admit that paul saw a vision ( whether you believe it or not) according the new testament, but you turn around and deny what New Testament says about Pauls companion hearing the voice while only paul saw. which one is it? Base on what evidence do you have to say one is a hallucination and the other one is just a philosophical hallucination 🤔
1. The Christians mindset.....1+1+1=1.
2. God dieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
3. Jesus is God and the Son of God at the sametime.
4. Jesus is the word of God, and the Bible is also the word of God.
5. The Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and impregnated her and God Jesus was born.
6.Yahweh and Jesus are co-equal and co-eternal, unfortunately Yahweh reduced Jesus in a womb (birth) and a tomb (death), and then raised him from the dead.
Has Mike never had the flu? Vomiting is totally common in the flu.
The gospels claim that the disciples saw the risen Jesus and the best explanation is that it actually happened?
Seriously? :D
Jesus also claimed to be God, and that He would rise from the dead. Paul says if Jesus did not rise, Christians should be pitied above all. 1 Corinthians 15:14
over 500 people witnessed resurrected jesus.
Ephraim Hills
Actually only one anonymous author who wasnt an eyewitness himself claims that there were 500 eyewitnesses.
Nothing more than hearsay and not a shred of evidence. ;)
You're wrong about the anonymous part at least. That information is from one of the NT documents that is most clearly not anonymous (1. Corinthians).
This was a good debate.
Mike, you are simply brilliant. I did not think about you as a good debater before but now I do. Thank you
God is one in three The father, Jesus and the holy spirit ( the trinity). Jesus is the son of God and God at the same time, and Jesus died therefore God died, Jesus (God) was resurrected by God ( by himself). Jesus created his Mother because he is God and he is the son and God of Marry (his Mother) Madness !!!
Thank you Mike for trying so hard to prove that God died.
I’m not sure why Ehrman grants that he has to explain the apostles seeing Jesus-though he’s certainly right that if we assume that fact, there are a dozen more likely explanations than resurrection. But there are even more if all we have to explain is *stories about the resurrection circulating decades later*, ranging from the banal “someone just made that part up” to the natural embellishment that occurs as stories are repeated verbally. (“After his death, Jesus appeared to one of the disciples in a dream” becomes “appeared to one of the disciples” becomes “appeared to the disciples.”).
Just the fact that we have debates over the Resurrection of Jesus proves that a personel God probably does not exist.
A Forrest Gump joke in 2009?
1:53:37 You have in no way shape or form demonstrated your hypothesis, and saying over and over again that you have demonstrated it does *not* mean that you actually have.
No group hallucinations? :D You have many Virgin Marys to worship, my friend...
At least this is a civilized debate and in our part of the world we can disagree and discuss and learn. Today 12 people were killed in Paris for critizising islam and their prophet. They want to take these liberties we have away and lead us back to the midevil ages - back to the darkness and foggy past. We have to push back.
Bjarne Søegaard Political Islam caused the dark ages to begin with and will never stop seeking that until they conquer the whole earth! They are lead by Satan and these attacks makes that self evident.
***** Yea that's why I have my name for everyone to see when I call *"Islam"* Satanic! Yea, I'm really shaking in my boots.
***** I don't think you understand what Anarcho Republican was writing. He simply says that Islam should not have special privileges in the western societies but be able to be criticized as Christianity has been.
***** Why are you too chicken to reveal your full name? Are you afraid of the Big Bad Wolf too? =)
AnarchoRepublican did you watch that video from the link in my last post to you?
If, so tell me what you think.
***** I ɔɥǝɔʞǝp nupǝɹ ɯʎ qǝp ɐup ʇɥǝ ʍolɟ [ɔopǝ ɟoɹ ɯnslᴉɯs] ʍɐs uoʇ ʇɥǝɹǝ ɯɐʎqǝ ʎon ɔɐu sǝǝ ɥᴉs [Sɐʇɐu] dlɐu ᴉu ʇɥǝ ʌᴉpǝo˙ Iɟ ʎonɹ ɔɐu ɥɐuplǝ ᴉʇ ʎon ɯᴉƃɥʇ ʍɐuʇ ʇo ʍɐʇɔɥ ᴉʇ˙ ˥O˥
:-) ⅄on ɥɐʌǝ ʎǝʇ ʇo ɔɹᴉʇᴉɔᴉzǝ Ԁolᴉʇᴉɔɐl Islɐɯ˙
Simply put - Licona is disingenuous and really weak - but I was especially disappointed with his misrepresentations of Ehrman.
I write as a disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Care to explain?
Matthias Dailey He won't explain because he hasn't done any studying to make a respectable argument for such ridiculous statement. Mike Licona did an excellent job.
Mike does not EXPLAIN HOW any of these things happened other than "it says".or that.....god did it......wha????
How do you explain how a resurrection occurs, if we knew that it'd be the holy grail of medicine.
well then I guess that answers the resurrection reality for you doesnt it?
I’d have to say, this was a weak performance by Licona. Man, you can’t just keep restating your opening speech for half the rebuttal time and think that’s effective. We already heard it!! Plus Bart throws some real logical daggers at Licona which pretty much sunk him. btw- I’m a huge apologist Christian.
1:10:20 Very WIlliam Lane Craig of you.
Objectively speaking, the resurrection was highly improbable. Objectively speaking, there are more than six billion printed books that said it happened in existence more than 1,980 years after the disputed fact. Objectively speaking, the claim that Jesus rose from the dead hasn't changed for more than 1,980 years. What's the probability of those two things happening if Jesus did not rise from the dead?
Hello dr Ehrman,
I want to point that Paul wrote about resurrection of Jesus in Corinthians as
*SPIRITUAL RESURRECTION NOT PHYSICALLY*
Corinthians 15: 35
I think it was very important point should have been mentioned.
At 50:00 what if God exists and wanted to raise Jesus from the dead? What if my grandfather was a wizard and wanted me to have magical wings that I could use at night when nobody looks at me? What if coma patients, in coma for different length of time, under intensive care wake up at the same time: what is more likely: coincidence or the prayers? How come that the trick does not work more often? How come that of all millions of poor souls that gets to Fatima to be cured, those who claim to be cured are can be counted with your hands? How many coma patient are still in coma or croaked despite of all the prayers ? And incidentally random occurrence are in fact commonplace: hey, some people has even won the lottery twice: miracle!? ...... Well maybe ... not.
Tom Brooks
What planet are you on?
Ever heard that science is based on evidence?
ianrwood21 Yeah! Sure! Ever heard of evolution being supported by said evidence?
Yeah me neither! Interesting aye?
Tom Brooks
Except for one little fact - science is based on evidence.
ianrwood21 Except another little fact - there is no evidence for evolution therefore evolution is not science.
AnarchoRepublican It's not the amber itself or the objects contained in the amber that I question. It's the assumptions that are carried into assuming the amber is actually 100,000s of years old in the first place.
Curious have you read up on the 3 assumption rules radiometric dating that are assumed by evolutionists?
1. The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
2. The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
3. The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.
These of course apply to objects contained within amber as well.
Ref: answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/does-radiometric-dating-prove-the-earth-is-old/
Additional amber ref and dating: www.icr.org/article/2824/268
Question: has anyone read Mike Licona's book The Resurrection of Jesus? I heard it's very well written. I am looking for some must-read books about Jesus besides Ehrman's work. I already have Jesus, Interrupted ready for when I finish my current book.
I would look up Eilene Pagels and John Dominic Crossan. Two of my other fav authors/speakers on Jesus. Morton Smith also had some very interesting theories. If you like controversy, check out anything by The Jesus Seminar.
john robert mack Just replying with my new account here...I still have to get my hands on a book by Crossan. Haven't read any of his work yet. I also have The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man by Robert Price stored on my bookshelf. I really love his expertise, even though I don't agree with some of his conclusions. I wil soon check Richard Carrier's new book on Jesus as well. Thanks for the advice though!
I think all of the debates for Jesus Resurrection usually missed the point. We have to emphasize for what actually is the dispute? Understanding this point is critical for this dispute and than will go much clear. Now what I mean? All scholars atheists and believers are agree without doubt in one moment: Very early (even one year after the crucifixion) Peter, James and later (~15 years) Paul plus other early Christians was absolutely sincerely convinced that Jesus rise from the death. AGAIN, no doubt this is the case. However (and this is important to understand) the FACT that Peter, James and Paul plus others was absolutely sincerely convinced that resurrection occurs, is exposed from the believers as PROVE for the resurrection. ACTUALLY IT IS NOT PROVE. and this is the position of the non-believers and here Bart's view. So many different scenarios and variants could happened in order this early Christians absolutely sincerely to believe in the Resurrection AND IN FACT the Resurrection not to be the case, that simply to add the this as PROVE IS NOT CORRECT. You can here very frequently the sentence from the pastors and here from MIKE like this one: "After analyzing all the data we conclude that the most probable explanation is that actually Jesus for sure rise from the death". I would say that is simply NOT TRUE!!! You can come with many more absolutely real and possible variant except the Resurrection, that this kind of notion is NOT TRUE. THE reality is that: the Christian believers, believes in the Resurrection, BECAUSE THEY WONT TO BELIEVE in that, IT FITS WELL WITH THE PAUL's DOCTRINE for salvation and also of course, BECAUSE we don't know which of those many scenarios actually happened and most likely we will never know.
wow wow wow licona is amazing he impressed me I am going to become Christian.
+nabeel gill Amen!
+Divine Seducer Nero said the same thing!!, cheers !!
Yep, the debate is worth watching, Licona shines
+The Divine Seducer show us
Do you mean this debate? Or is this irony? Ehrman massacred licona ..
Yeshua was a common name. Now days we don't say Jerry from Ohio because there are billions of people yet many believers assume the bible was written in 16th century english and/or no mistakes in translation ever happened on accounts of popular rumors over 30 years 1,980 years ago.
I think you should sit(bound and gagged) a Christian apologist in front of a hardcore Scientologist or mormon when they ask why non-believers don't believe their claims.
Mike Licona seems to be holding on to desperate faith, though I feel he may be somewhat of a closet de-convert. One can tell that he appears to still be struggling with the notions of faith, especially around the miracle question -in the Q&A. To be honest, his assertions that he has resolved the internal conflict may be due to his need of resolving cognitive dissonance, instead of arriving at a resolution of knowledge (i.e. his copout defense, which doesn't pass its own criteria).
Let's just use a show of hands and call that proof. Yay !!! The Christians WIN !!!!
Yeah lets do the same with those that believe in evolution. Yay!! The atheists win!!!
1:38:05 What is that so funny? Does anyone know? Please.
So Licona quotes scripture to support his claim? Tacitus & Josephus not contemporary. Loads of paople called Jesus(Jeshua) I could destroy his (evidence?)
Titanic matches "the Illusion of memory" from the "invisible gorilla", bad example. It's not the memory of titanic passengers in this case, but memory of Mexicans or Russians who wrote about titanic 20 years later.
This guy Licona is a disgusting form of a pre-suppositionalist. Bart suggested that a good historian be removed from the outcome of any claim he tries to prove. Licona came back in one of his rebuttals saying that he basically really thought the matter over and despite his personal religious beliefs that he is really working in the best interests of history. And then one sentence later accused bart, a previous Christian, of being the one who is really biased in his beliefs. This guy is disgusting. He is absolutely drowning in his own personal conviction and has no objectivity at all. It is a waste of time to listen to anything he says.
A wonderful debate, beautiful explanations by LIcorna and erhman. If some one ask me distribute 100 marks between them I give Erhman55 and Licorna 45. But still I am a christian
***** what are you trying to say. I am confused.
Bart is dead on again.
would love ehrman too meet eberhart
50:22 God raises jesus from the death ! Hello is not Jesus himself God ?!
Christianity is insane manner of thinking. If you wanna be christian, you can ,but you have through your brain.
48:23 Mike says "We can't prove we were born when we think we were."
Ever heard of a birth certificate? Apparently he doesn't have one?
could be made up
Bart stated @1:27:24 that Visions happen all the time and I have heard of a small number of people having them but I have never had one and if I were to have one then I'd have to conclude that it is either From God or from Satan himself, I myself believe what it says in The Bible regarding the accounts of the witnesses after Jesus was raised from the dead.
He's making an error when ascribing your beliefs regarding walking on water, at least to my impression. You're merely making the provisio of simple enumeration that the observations we've made of reality as we know it indicate that it's not possible to walk on lukewarm water and that if someone claims to do so, some other explanation is more likely.
Edit: also, claiming "I was x, now I'm y" isn't a red herring, it's the genetic fallacy
Looks great for 48 there though!
Interestingly enough, the power of resurrection wasn't limited to Jesus in Orthodox Christianity, they held saint zenobius could do it too
Why is it believers of the bible cannot comprehend that if a story teller (scribe) creates the outline of a story that is based on hearsay, whether the story is on a real person or not, that it is easy to create a more complex story by simply adding embellishments to give your story more substance, especially if you are trying to convince people that your story is true. This is even easier to do when working with real history if you are creating your stories hundreds of years after this person real or not was meant to have died. A good example would be the current TV show "Vikings" which is loosely based on some real historical figures but with known myth and script writer stories woven around them that are not historically correct or possible. Now! step back to a time when the printing press had not been invented and most of the population of the world didn't read or write then you increase the problem of knowing anything that may be either historical or true. Now consider that all copies of these stories were hand copied over and over again by different scribes, then also add translations of these hand written documents into other languages where there are phases and words that translate directly and the writer has to make something up to cover this problem when trying to compare them to the original language and you end up with just a story. Now compile a book with myths and know stories than date back to 1700 BC to 500 BC that make no sense... Ladies and Gentlemen I present the Bible's. Belief in a God is a personal thing. What religion does is dictate how you should see "Your" God. God does not need religion or religious doctrine or the billions of dollars taken from the believers of that doctrine to make itself known or understood. It is God!
What if a scribe or author is simply interviewing the witnesses and compiling a book on the events?
"Twin brother" theory runs into a wall with the Gospels descriptions that the wounds could be seen in his hands, feet, and side.
only Johns gospel a tht and its not history sorry
Sean Chaney yes, and also, they didn't know he had a twin?
Mike did a very poor job, while Bart did not come up with any points that can not easily be explained. I was disappointed with both speakers hoping for much more in depth difficult questions rather than these superficial statements.
The crucifixion may not be necessary to prove the resurrection, but it is of serious prophetic importance. "He was pierced for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities." Same with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. According to Daniel 9, the Messiah had to come and be cut off before the destruction of Jerusalem. Unless these stories began to come about after 70 A.D., which is highly unlikely, I see no reason why a group of people would fake a Messiah, or why the Jews would reject this Messiah if it helped forward their agenda. Honestly, I find the evidence for the resurrection okay, but the fulfilled Old Testament prophecies really seal the whole thing for me. Ironically, Bart is pretty much illiterate as far as the Old Testament goes. For example, when Jesus says, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Bart thinks that is a desperate cry, when in actuality it is the quotation of the 22nd Psalm. Read the rest of the psalm, and you see that the psalm itself is a Messianic prophecy being fulfilled right before the people's eyes. In other words, you cannot understand Christianity without first understanding its Jewish roots.
The Jews don't believe in Jesus pbuh being the Messiah because according to Psalms 20:6 God would SAVE HIS MESSIAH. It says that God would answer his Messiah's prayer. So if Jesus pbuh died even if he was resurrected as Christians believe, then he couldn't be the Messiah. If you add to that the prayer of Jesus at the Garden of Gethsemane in Matthew 26:39 You see that Jesus pbuh prayed to God to save him and God accepted his prayer.
Muslims believe that Jesus pbuh did not die but he was saved and it only appeared so to the onlookers. He was then taken up ALIVE to the heavens to return at the end of days.
If the Quran is correct the the Jews have their Messiah (It doesn't matter because they won't follow him anyway) and Christians and Muslims all have the same Messiah. But if the New Testament is correct then everyone else is wrong. You have to ask yourself, is it likely that the Gospels that were all written anonymously and whom were not attributed to any writer for nearly 200 years, let alone the crucifixion was not witnessed by any of the disciples because they all forsook him and fled is accurate when you have previous prophesies and future revelation in the Quran that don't contradict each other.
Saddiq Fogle I'm a bit confused as to what you're saying, nor am I extremely knowledgeable in Muslim apologetics, but I'll do my best here.
For starters, I don't think that Psalm 20 was ever recognized as a Messianic Psalm. But even if it is, how do you square that with Isaiah 53? God saving his anointed, if you believe that to be Messiah, does not have to reference his crucifixion at all. It could just as well refer to his resurrection. In contrast, there is no getting around Isaiah 53.
As far as being taken up alive, keep in mind we believe he was taken up alive too :)
As for your suggestion that no disciples were at the crucifixion, this is simply not true. For starters, John was there, and Jesus handed Mary into his care. And how do you know they were anonymous for 200 years? To say because no church fathers said the name is an argument from silence, thus logically fallacious. All of the church fathers only quoted from the 4 gospels as scripture, and Justin Martyr, less than 100 years after the fact, even names the gospel of Peter, using a line from Mark, which gives evidence for the fact that Mark was Peter's interpreter and wrote Peter's version of the Gospel. Ultimately, the evidence weighs in favor of them not being anonymous, but attributed to their proper authors from the very beginning.
Finally, I know of no Old Testament prophecy fulfilled by the Qu'ran. Show me one, and I'll be happy to weigh in on it. Peace and love.
It is believed by a lot of scholars that the messiah would visit the second temple, any right understanding of prophecy, in my opinion says this, who else could have come to the second temple, and fulfilled the other prophecies, but Jesus. It seems silly to think that their will be another. If for whatever reason you did not accept him you could see this. If a person wants to look at scripture upside down to try and say Jesus is not the messiah go ahead, but don't tell me in the next breath that you are still waiting for a Messiah.
Winston psalm 45, is that not the father talking about or to the son, through the psalmist, of course. " your throne O God, will last forever" I always thought this. To me this is the verse of all verses to speak of the deity of the Messiah and Jesus. Another point or question , why the late dates for Acts and Luke, when at the end of Acts Paul is still under house arrest and there is no mention of the destruction of the temple, why do lots of scholars, date Luke and acts to after that date.70AD when it is believed by most that Paul met his end in 64AD. Shouldn't those books be before that date.
Eric Day Thanks for the input my brother. Prophecy has been one of the strongest confirmations of the truth of scripture for me, especially after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, proving that the Old Testament prophecies were not faked later by Christians. As far as dating of the scriptures, I tend to think the entire New Testament was written before 70 A.D. It's a very conservative date, and I'm not tied to it, but it seems to me that as you said, Acts would have mentioned the death of Paul and the destruction of the temple. Also, Revelation seems to talk about the temple's destruction, and tells us exactly which emperor is reigning at the time he wrote it (when it says 5 kings have passed, one is, and one is to come. The sixth ruler of Rome was Nero.) It seems to me we have two options. Either all of these people were lying and were a part of a giant conspiracy, or Christianity is true. Given the size of the conspiracy and all the outside evidence, I think the latter is obvious.
licona talks 4 the sake of talking and bart wiped the floor with mike s crap
tldr: The resurrection can be proven if you presuppose God, and that God planned to crucify Jesus, and that Jesus was the son of God, and that Jesus preformed miracles, and that Jesus was actually resurrected.
Even shorter version: Proof for the resurrection = Jesus was resurrected.
Who needs anymore evidence than that? Oh, by the way I can fly.
I wish it had been only Bart Ehrman because then I could send this to a fundamentalist that I know. In it's current form I suspect he would claim that Mike Licona made a persuasive argument.
drstrangelove09 is your goal only to destroy his faith?
Fred Tusing
No. My goal is for him to start using reason to decide what is true.
What is true? Are you saying that only Bart is rational?
Fred Tusing
Of the two at this debate, Bart is making the correct points. Licona is not.
As far was the question "what is true?" goes, you are going to have to narrow down the question.
drstrangelove09 So, your goal is to deconvert the fundamentalist that you know because you claim that only atheism is rational? Your opinion is valid as an opinion, but is also a very dogmatic view of reality.
I love these debates but in the end still comes down to what you believe. Dr Ehrman will never be beaten in a worldly debate because we cant prove what actually happened in a worldly sense. Faith tells us they happened but you cant prove events happened due to fact there is no eye witness alive today. That's way I look at most of these debates.
I think Bart knows what you say here, but he plays to this new atheism, just my opinion, and he thinks at the eleventh hour he can resume his faith, after reaping rewards of nonfaith, just my opinion, and if I am wrong I stand corrected, only he knows for sure.
thats another slight on people character that winds me up. Its a no atheist in foxholes situation. First I think he is an agnostic , maybe with atheistic leanings but it would be wrong to compare him to Hitchens Dillahunty and Richard Carrier. Next you imply in his final days he will abandon all his own personal convictions and become a believer without any shred of proof. Just seems a bit disingenuous to a man who seems sincere to me.
jon fromtheUK hey it was just a comment, I see far crazier things on these streams, it was a bit of a slap, but I said if I am wrong I stand corrected.
yep and I have seen some bat shit crazy stuff!
Just for the record......I don't think its a case of you, or anybody actually being wrong , but please understand how fantastically insulting it can be sometimes when someone does or say something and not view it from the other persons side or know how they would actually react. Its basically casuistry.
Let me give you an example. In hospital ,people on their death bed can be visited and offered words by people in holy orders and if they do so wish, they can helped in converting before meeting their maker , its seen as a humane and perfectly acceptable situation.
But on the other hand if a couple of agnostic atheist were allowed around saying look don't worry, all that heaven and hell stuff was just made up by superstitious bronze age goat herders who didn't know where the sun went at night, please have no fear, there is no proof there is some deity is about to judge you and send you to some theme park, one naughty , one nice so relax, go in peace etc ....... it would be seen very differently :-)
jon fromtheUK yeah the first part of your post was interesting, as I should not just make blanket statements, I agree, and when I do I try and say as much.
As far as two atheist or agnostics, hanging around, a better question would be, what would you say to them, when they are on that death bed, I guarantee 95 percent would accept conversion. I guarantee you that, that is why I have little respect for the atheist, most when their life is at stake all of those funny jokes, and philosophical arguments go right out the window. " Oh god please don't let me die" I hate fake ass people.
I'm guessing immediately that you should have gotten a different college degree......