Bart Ehrman Responds to William Lane Craig on the Resurrection

[@CosmicSkeptic]

I was excited to see that William Lane Craig has responded to Bart Ehrman's comments in this podcast in an hour-long video you can watch here: kzbin.inforv7mzTN0xpY?feature=share This clip is taken from Within Reason #35 with Bart Ehrman, available in full here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aIS3mpSYh7triqc

[@cuthip]

So this is what WLC was responding to on Capturing Christianity?

[@demo4444]

Love the rebuttal, thanks for the link!

[@Andrea.r94]

It's facinating to know more about the historicity of jesus. I heard many arguments though, stating that not even his existance can be proven if you look for evidence contemporary to his supposed existance. It would be very cool if there was somebody reputable enough for this podcast, that could talk about these arguments.

[@laurajarrell6187]

Cosmic Skeptic, Alex, I know being immersed in the 'believing' schooling you have seems to have really made you more , um, hopeful? But as for this bit, look at all the Michael Jackson, Elvis , Tupac, sightings. Also, I don't even think much of the bible is real. Nor especially 'good'. The Jesus in it seems too much like most other preachers. Not exceptional. More Paul's religion, honestly. 👍💖💙🥰✌

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@laurajarrell6187 LOL 😆 : speaking from ignorance isn't a logical response. Ehrman's psychotic laughing is his best Argument to WLC. But people like you with 0 theological education can be persuaded by his incoherent statements on the New Testament. Trying to equate Elvis sighing to Jesus Resurrection and resulting Religion of over 2.0 billion people is your psychotic thinking.

[@IanM-id8or]

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

[@chefchaudard3580]

When Napoleon died on St Helen island, many people in France did not believed it. We even have accounts of people who saw him after his death.

[@basolfjeld]

Exactly, and the claim would not be any more plausible even if some of the people claiming it were his bandmates. History can not verify the plausibility of the supernatural. It can only deal with possible natural explanations.

[@skepticusmaximus184]

And he didn't even need an empty tomb.

[@littlebitofhope1489]

@@basolfjeld The present can't verify the plausibility of the supernatural either.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

@@basolfjeldwild that his tomb is empty…

[@markevans8206]

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

[@GRP--gw1yl]

1.) To write stuff down in the ancient world was very very expensive and difficult, scrolls cost a fortune. it’s not like anyone could just write something down. This would be normative in our world but not then, We shouldn’t project our Modern world onto the ancient world. 2.) Perhaps someone did, kept the scroll within their communities and was lost to time or damage etc for all we know, scrolls aren’t built to last 2000 years. Although this is unlikely I’m just saying it to point out that we can’t escape it by saying “Why didn’t anyone write it down”. We don’t know if they did.

[@4x4r974]

@@GRP--gw1yl scribes were NOT expensive and we know people were often connected via religion and associations. They could have very easily COLLECTIVELY afforded something like this. We know group inscriptions and scrolls from the same period

[@hairiestwizard]

​@@GRP--gw1ylthat's why it's ridiculous to claim that any of the 12 illiterate (maybe Matthew would be an exception) apostles could write in the first place. These are oral traditions written down by non-primary sources

[@GRP--gw1yl]

@@4x4r974 1.) From what I know about scrolls and taking things down in the ancient world through scholars and historians is, it was pretty expensive, Could you provide me some sort of evidence or source to say it wasn’t? 2.) Sure perhaps they could’ve collectively afforded something like this if they wanted to but remember, This was a radical claim that many would not have believed or been even sympathetic to, Christianity wasn’t formed yet, just a Sect of Judaism, this would’ve been a rogue group of people claiming this. Making it even more difficult 3.) The point I was making was, it would not have been as simple as just writing it down, this is the main point I’m getting at. Along with we can’t be sure they didn’t. It doesn’t sit right with me claiming it would’ve been simple.

[@asagoldsmith3328]

​@@GRP--gw1ylusing the argument from silence IN FAVOR of a historical event happening is absolutely wild. "We don't have these extant documents therefore it's reasonable to assume they existed." ??? Absolute horsedung.

[@tensecondbuickgn]

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

[@Djenka-w2i]

Another bot spamming that quote

[@RougeDeBlah]

You're so smart

[@lonzoformvp5078]

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

[@rsr789]

If you compare Mark's 'Jesus' to John's 'Jesus', they are clearly two different people / characters.

[@travis1240]

Myths tend to get bigger over time

[@thescoobymike]

Reading Mark first really does change a lot

[@DewaHuang]

I think thats nothing strange, Because assuming with earlier account, most people still remember the event, so doesn't need to write very detail of it Later on when your audience people outside of the area, you would write more detail

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@DewaHuang Well, the gospel of Mark was written 35-45 years after Jesus died…

[@jackiemontgomery1754]

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

[@The_Bastard_Of_Anjou]

Agreed. For some reason we give the bible a pass. If we used the historical method to examine the bible, it falls 100% flat on its face.

[@chrispysaid]

Your TLDR is too long so I didn't read

[@jackiemontgomery1754]

@@chrispysaid Here it is short and concise. The Resurrection story is a clear developing legend.

[@shassett79]

@@The_Bastard_Of_Anjou > For some reason -- The reason is emotional investment and cultural hegemony. The people giving the Bible a pass are Christians or others who have been culturally conditioned to give Christianity undue deference. Otherwise we'd throw it out with any number of other myths.

[@Spamlett]

Mark leaves the resurrection narrative out as a literary device playing off the fact his audience knew what happened next, not because no resurrection narrative existed at the time it was written

[@adcrane]

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

[@Truth-Be-Told-USA]

Exactly

[@lesliewilliam3777]

"I've worked with dying people for years, and I see the dead everwhere." Huh???

[@adcrane]

@@lesliewilliam3777​​⁠Why is that so surprising to you. I know it’s my mind overlaying remembered images on similar living people. The experience is ubiquitous across cultures. I just happen to have formed close relationships with many hundreds of now dead people. Their forms and their faces appear to me often. Is that surprising to you?

[@gabriellara7456]

may I ask what is your line of work? is this an experience shared among any people that you know?

[@adcrane]

@@gabriellara7456 It's the experience of humans across many cultures. I've worked in health a large part of my life, mostly in end-of-life care. I have also been at the bedside of my own father as he died, and provided long term palliative care for my own mother. Seeing, probably better described as imagining, the forms of dead people we have been close to is ubiquitous. You find its one of the most common topics in grief and loss counseling, and counsellor training. It can be very alarming for some people, but it shouldn't be. Our minds do all sorts of weird things in the face of stress, and our vision is a feature of our minds. If you become convinced dead people are alive in reality you might want to talk to a professional, but I've known many a widow who shares a cup of tea with her spouse on a daily basis. They often converse, and feel their presence, but most are quite aware what is happening in reality.

[@oneilximon3464]

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

[@JacquesMare]

Here in South Africa too......

[@oneilximon3464]

@@JacquesMare my brother 🤲🏽

[@shassett79]

I just saw some crazy thing on the news about people murdering bald guys in Africa to- and I hope this isn't true and I swear I'm not making it up- get the gold inside their heads?

[@JacquesMare]

@@shassett79 dude the amount if insanity people believe in here, is off the charts. We had to transfer a security guard two weeks ago because he insisted that the female staff had bewitched him and he just had to get the fuck away from them.

[@shassett79]

@@JacquesMare lol

[@sedgieroobets]

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

[@johnparsons9084]

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

[@jerryp6001]

Or someone writing that one guy saw something...or that 500 people saw something. Does that one guy even exist or is he made up too?

[@Bibleguy89-uu3nr]

Except they were mainly still alive and lived in the same region it happened, in addition to Jesus family members and followers who doubted His Deity previously and then transformed their lives after their encounter with Him.

[@spazzabilly]

​@@Bibleguy89-uu3nrdo you have any evidence to support that claim? Bible verses don't count as evidence.

[@aussie1602]

@@spazzabilly Why doesn't it count? they are in fact historical documents. Just cause you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it isn't. And in fact it's on you to disprove they aren't historical and reliable eye witness accounts. And the fact that it is recorded by more than one eye witness that they saw Him resurrected negates the intial point. Does it matter if it was 500 or 12 more than one eye witness that saw Him alive after death and burial (Minimal Matthew, John & Paul). Luke interivewed other eye witnesses and Mark knew the apostles.

[@Bibleguy89-uu3nr]

@@spazzabilly The Gospel accounts in this case are taken as serious evidence by even secular scholars. I'd suggest looking into the minimal facts argument by Gary Habermas. Most of this has been common knowledge in the resurrection discussion for 20 years.

[@old_man_fran]

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

[@princegobi5992]

Idk about that, this was a struggle.

[@lpwork6809]

@@princegobi5992 Bart says : 6:16 The Romans left Him, (Jesus) on the cross. Also Bart: 10:06 Pilate then handed (Jesus) to the Jews. Bible: At least %95 Accurate History is as accurate as the historian recreating it. In this case (Bart) The Apostles would never gave up their lives for a lier, but they gave up their lives Because Jesus resurrected. Faith is not logic or knowledge.. It's a gift from God.

[@aaronfunnell5220]

​​​​@@lpwork6809 Your ability to time stamp out of context quotes is beyond comprehension. When he was talking about crucified victims being left on the cross he was referencing actual historical evidence. When he said Pilate handed him to the Jews he was quoting the bible (that big book he doesn't believe is accurate). He wasn't contradicting himself because he wasn't quoting the bible as evidence for what happened, he was just saying what it says happened. Did you even listen to the conversation? On a side note, martyrdom isn't evidence for the resurrection. Its only evidence that a few people (the evidence for Peter, Paul, James and John is decent, evidence for the rest isn't) thought they saw it and were willing to die.

[@Esico6]

@@aaronfunnell5220 Martyrdom itself isnt evidence indeed. But thats not the point. Its the many eye witnesses who saw him after his death and then stick with that even when put to death themself.

[@aaronfunnell5220]

@@Esico6 I hope you aren't referring to the 500 number which has not be collaborated anywhere. The only reference you have for that number is one bible book. Not one of the 500 wrote about it.

[@Philusteen]

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

[@gideondavid30]

Isn't that all history though? How can you prove 500 people actually saw Jesus even if you were a detective in the 1st century? There is no way to verify that only to take 500 witness statements. By iself, as Alex rightfully points out, the evidence is insufficient but when combined with everything else it makes the case.

[@littlebitofhope1489]

Sometimes Ehrman is a little loose with the word "fact". I am not used to academics being that way.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Exactly… The data isn’t "Jesus appeared to groups of people.“ The data is "35-45 years after Jesus died an author who doesn’t identify himself and doesn’t identify his sources claims that Jesus appeared to groups of people.“

[@Philusteen]

@@ramigilneas9274 yes, that. 😆

[@paulschlachter4313]

@@ramigilneas9274 Paul's account in 1.Corr 15 is a bit more than that though.

[@Petticca]

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

[@bredenis5]

This is 100% correct. Matthew and Luke just took what Mark wrote and cleaned up the theology. These are not reliable independent accounts and people treat them like they are impartial, objective historical documents which is absolutely ridiculous.

[@pjmlegrande]

Bear in mind that what we call the Gospel of Mark, or the Gospel of Luke, etc., is a reference to a particular tradition a certain early Christian community followed regarding the Christ story. A community simply followed a version of the Christ story supposedly first propounded by a particular apostle. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not the actual authors in the sense we would understand today. Most of the apostles were likely illiterate (Matthew and Paul being the known exceptions). It’s rather like a member of one of these early Christian communities identifying as a “Mark -ist or Luke-ist.” The actual first written form of each canonical gospel did not exist until years after the canonical gospel “authors” were dead.

[@nimagougol8781]

I’m Muslim. Romans were burning Christians and throwing them in front of beasts for centuries. You are educated!!?? Even Constantine decided to convert in middle of war. You are not adult! You are blind! You are dead.

[@RojirigoD]

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

[@willmosse3684]

Exactly. I myself have had experiences where I could have sworn I’ve seen people who have died, for instance my grandfather. Now I am a totally secular atheist person, so I just shake my head, and go “wow, that’s weird, my mind is playing tricks on me.” But superstitious people living in societies that believe in supernatural happenings will take these kinds of things as real. And then further, they will expand in the telling, and people will believe those expanded versions. After 30 years, there could be any kind of stuff going around.

[@Mr.Goodkat]

@@willmosse3684 Wouldn't someone who believes in the supernatural just take all of your accounts as further proof? neither you or the commenter you're responding to actually argued against the "visions" as genuine, you merely give more examples of people having these experiences.

[@willmosse3684]

@@Mr.Goodkat Yes, superstitious people would take the claims as genuine. But they don’t meet the standards of evidence the have been developed since the rationalist enlightenment and the scientific revolution. So it’s a medieval or ancient way of thinking. The reason for pointing out that people believe all sorts of claims about people rising from the dead, is that Alex was positing that these claims about Jesus amount to evidence he really rose from the dead, because surely all these claims wouldn’t be made about something that didn’t happen. Well, if that’s your standard of evidence, you need to believe all these vampire claims too.

[@RojirigoD]

What seems interesting to me is how the apostolic and Roman Catholic Church is skeptical of these testimonies and even centuries ago has an explanation of anemia and hallucinations due to the sadness of losing a loved one as the most likely explanation for the appearance of a nearby dead person. Even criticizing village priests who believed these things and performed exorcisms on corpses or decapitated them so that they would not rise again. how easy it is to look at the straw in the other's eye...

[@willmosse3684]

@@RojirigoD Absolutely

[@jamespeterson7125]

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

[@Brickerbrack]

To be fair, I think Alex was playing more of a devil's advocate here, almost as a stand-in for Craig.

[@usernamediv]

@@Brickerbrack Exactly. And a beautiful job playing devils advocate.

[@roshanjohnson7467]

Erhman is talking out of his arse and has nothing more to offer other than mere skepticism. If you think about it logically if Jesus' body was left on the cross, there would be no hue and cry about resurrection. It logically follows from our understanding of the culture and practices (of which have literary and archaelogical proof) that Jesus body was kept in a tomb. Show me a good consensus that Jesus was not buried. Most scholars admit that. Even Erhman admitted that few years back till he understood exactly where that road leads

[@TorianTammas]

We have the problem to easier accept fan fiction the more often it is repeated as each time we have another copy in our brain.

[@chrisbaker3066]

I think that Alex was merely playing the role of the Devil's Avocado!

[@AndrewDavidWright]

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

[@casparuskruger4807]

So why are you still a believer?

[@AndrewDavidWright]

@@casparuskruger4807 how many days do you have? There isn't one, all encompassing reasons. It's many reasons, large and small, that drive my beliefs. The internet is not the place to unload that.

[@bradthompson5383]

You worship a demon. The christian god is pure evil. That god commanded genocides and genital mutilation. If you are moral you should repent of Christianity, the most evil faith ever - tied with Islam and Judaism.

[@casparuskruger4807]

@@AndrewDavidWright How bout you give me your BEST reason?

[@pjmlegrande]

Ehrman knows the Christian“text” inside out, in several of the languages in which it was first written down (Koine Greek, for example). He’s also has broad knowledge of the history of the ancient Mediterranean world. His scholarship and textual analysis is incisive and meticulous. PhD from Princeton. Is he criticized? Of course! This is academia, after all and he’s dealing with subject matter that many literally hold sacred. I find his work a breath of fresh air and highly recommend it.

[@julianmarsh8384]

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

[@Logosfollower]

But did they die

[@julianmarsh8384]

They were supposed to have died....Graves in his novel Hercules My Shipmate, does an epilogue that outlines how they died.@@Logosfollower

[@geoffpoole483]

These eye witness accounts have no other supporting evidence. Fighting in battle probably plays havoc with the mind.

[@TorianTammas]

​@@LogosfollowerPeople rarely are hundreds of years old so yes.

[@bolshoefeodor6536]

Maybe the Greek soldiers weren't mistaken after all? Maybe they were right?

[@siddave549]

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

[@damonmeier3652]

Bro watched the passion of Christ 😂

[@BarelloSmith]

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

[@8044868]

The presence of the bone or even the entire skeleton is not necessarily evidence that Yehohanon's body was removed from the cross and put into a tomb after he died. The Roman practice was to leave the remains on the cross until they had been picked clean by scavengers and/or decomposed. Then the skeleton was tossed onto a garbage heap or thrown into a common grave. The victim's relatives or friends thus had the opportunity to secure the skeleton for deposit in a tomb.

[@BarelloSmith]

@@8044868 I mean... Yes it is? The find doesn't tell you whether he was put into the grave immediately after his death or weeks or months later, but it definitely tells us that his remains were put into a tomb at some point. And it is very unlikely that he was buried in a mass grave before and later relocated, because his relatives wouldn't have been able to identify which bones belonged to him.

[@jeremycamacho8864]

@@8044868, he said it was "very good reason to believe," implying circumstantial evidence, direct evidence. It can very easily be understood why. Similar to Pilate's case, it merely coincides with the claim of Jesus being in the tomb. Regardless, whether Jesus was put in a tomb is once again only circumstantial evidence, and would not be proof against or for a reserection no matter which answer is most probable. It is a red herring to try and disprove such evidence when it is not core evidence the arguement at hand.

[@tonyburton419]

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

[@SonicluNerdGamer]

Technically he's being Jesus' advocate in this particular video at least lol

[@pererau]

​@@SonicluNerdGamerLOL Dad joke FTW!!!

[@shassett79]

@@pererau "Ok, now just roll the stone back!" - Jesus, probably, returning to the tomb after hearing that joke

[@CynHicks]

That's because Alex isn't your typical atheist. He undoubtedly sides with some of the arguments he represented. There's a reason he's often referred to as a theist that doesn't know it yet. 😅 It's not necessarily true, of course, but from a theist perspective he's got the arguments and he's definitely got the intelligence so he's just lacking the all important experience that pushes him over.

[@Corporate_Desecration]

@@CynHicks Considering his entire body of work, that conclusion seems to be a far cry. Utilizing arguments that are compelling to some theists in order to provoke conversation with a Scholar isn’t enough to extrapolate his “secret theism”. That’s purely your inference. It’s far more likely that Alex is playing devils advocate and conceding/accepting some theistic claims that haven’t met their burden of proof

[@BassStevie]

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

[@fisterklister]

Not a great discussion. A wise man (Bart) wasting time on a not-too-clever guy.

[@bonojennett]

​@@fisterklister Alex isn't being an apologist here. He's just wearing a apologetic hat asking the general questions.

[@whyfuckinchannel]

@@fisterklister Damn, you're not-too-clever yourself guy lmao

[@MichaelLevine-n6y]

@@fisterklister Where do you find Alex being "not too clever"?

[@mrsatire9475]

@@MichaelLevine-n6y Repeating the same arguments that apply more to Mohammed even after it was explained to him

[@petergrant2561]

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

[@camilleespinas2898]

🤣🤣👍🏼

[@chaddonal4331]

To the contrary. Paul is claiming 500 people have seen Jesus because they are his living contemporaries who have been verified and who have told their stories. This is part of the rapid growth of the early church. If Paul were lying, imagining, creating a legend, or exaggerating- then he would have immediately lost credibility and revealed himself Not to be a true apostle of Christ.

[@Moodboard39]

@@chaddonal4331 and even the people didnt believe he was one. Paul was a Jew, why he follow jesus who he never met in person?

[@dbladeford]

You had me up to the point that you disregarded reality. Regardless of one’s political bias, pretending that Trump doesn’t draw large crowds at rallies, relatively speaking, is delusional.

[@chaddonal4331]

@@Moodboard39 He claimed twice that the Lord Jesus appeared to him; part of his humility that this made him “least of the apostles” because he saw Him last. Paul also claimed that a requirement of true apostleship was to have “seen the risen Lord”. So, by his own testimony, Paul did see the resurrected Christ! When you say that “they” didn’t acknowledge Paul to be an apostle, you are far too general. You are referring to the unbelievers, whom you are choosing to associate with. All believers in Christ have recognized apostolic authority and the revelation of God through the Apostle Paul to teach accurate truth regarding our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I align myself with that group of “they” who did believe him.

[@mynsterious]

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

[@TenTonNuke]

Alex is not in the echo chamber? What does that mean? Alex knows the answer to every question he asked. He's just playing devil's advocate. Or in this case, Christ's advocate.

[@strumspicks2456]

@@TenTonNuke not even Christ's, more like Christian fanatics. They've long been out of touch with Christ

[@Jolomon]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@TenTonNuke You said Christ’s advocate 😂

[@bluerfoot]

Which echo-chamber?

[@DeepDreamLullaby]

Too skeptical is a ridiculous saying

[@noelpucarua2843]

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

[@JacquesMare]

Oh that is a good one ! 😂😂😂 Also it is common knowledge among those who are familiar with Greek and Roman plays (literature) that the appearance and disappearance of gods in plays had been staged in such a way that the actors playing these parts would be let down with ropes or hoisted up out of sight of the audience after playing their part. So exits Jesus after doing his thing. The above is strong evidence that the gospels are actually plays, fiction as entertainment for the Roman and Greeks based on actual events, to mock the liberation struggles of the Jews.

[@shassett79]

>at what speed did he ascend -- Well we know he hit escape velocity, at the very least, since there aren't any reports of him plummeting back to Earth...

[@rsr789]

Just for reference, the Escape Velocity for an object to leave earth's gravitational influence is about 11 kilometers (7 miles) per second, or over 40,000 kilometers per hour (25,000 miles per hour). Ergo, I don't know why they keep on depicting Jesus as white, as that motherfucker (pun intended), would be burnt to a crisp.

[@shassett79]

@@rsr789 I literally lol'd

[@henghistbluetooth7882]

@@rsr789Why do I have flashbacks to African and European swallows carrying coconuts?

[@boxingjerapah]

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

[@Sal3600]

Lol that's because you fail to convince the believers otherwise. Please stfu

[@MMAGamblingTips]

As well as 2Pac and Santa Claus and myriad other deceased celebrities and fanciful characters. It’s absolutely embarrassing that we cannot come together to see the lethal and obvious climate change in front of our own eyes and even reject its existence outright. Meanwhile, we still play make believe as adults and murmur to invisible beings like we are their prized pets.

[@uninspired3583]

Evolution is a slow process, and there is no selection pressure for us to do so. I don't hold much hope for that.

[@lorenanders702]

I agree. But don't bet on it!

[@gary00333]

Please stop. Did Elvis split human history? Did people spend 40 days with Elvis after he had died? To the point that Romans ordinarily left crucified victims on the cross to slowly decompose, William Lane Craig has already provided a citation to an ancient source confirming that a crucified victim WAS given a burial. Why do you believe their normal practice was a fixed law? (Question for you: isn't recorded history literally filled with unusual, sometimes extraordinary events? Of course.) The absurdity of Ehrman's claim is twofold. First, the Biblical records from those who were there. Save your objections. Why should I believe Ehrman in the 21st century instead of those in the 1st century? And remember this was several accounts, not just one. But more to the point: why do YOU write this year as 2024? As does every other person on earth? Who does "2024" point to? Jesus Christ. He ALONE split human history. Not you, not anyone else. Is it rational to believe that Jesus would be the singular person to split human history if his body had rotted for days in view of all witnesses? How much faith does THAT take? And never forget, it was the resurrection alone that gave his BIRTH such history splitting significance. The resurrection of Christ split human history, providing the most extraordinary evidence that Jesus was indeed, God as he said he was. Jesus, whose moral teachings formed the foundation of Western civilization by FIRST TRANSFORMING the Roman empire. (See Tom Holland's "Dominion" on this.) And never forget that Jesus' disciples turned the world upside down preaching everywhere that Christ was risen. Several were killed for this testimony and all suffered greatly for it without A SINGLE ONE recanting their testimony when a recantation would have saved their life. And Ehrman wants us to believe that they did all of this after watching Jesus slowly rot on a cross? And he wants us to believe that the Romans made Christianity the official religion of Rome 300 years later when the founder slowly rotted on a cross? His argument is irrational.

[@theman-t7f]

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

[@strumspicks2456]

It was a total shit show, he claimed Bart is not a historian because he trained in textual criticism to no push back from the clueless interviewer

[@SpiderFromMars81]

Their aggressiveness is necessary to protect their charade.

[@bartbannister394]

It's funny that you think both sides are honest. Craig is a bullshit artist.

[@Sal3600]

Wlc is anything but aggressive lol none of my atheist heroes can stand with WLC. Maybe Hitchens could but even he would joke a lot which would undesirable draw attention away from the main point .

[@bartbannister394]

@@Sal3600 Bullshit. WLC is a liar who uses the debate platform to pretend he is a scholar. I could mop the floors with his bullshit in any forum.

[@MG-ot2yr]

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

[@brianholly3555]

Did they seem him all together or seriatim? How well did they know Jesus before? Could they pick him out of a line-up? How far away were they? What were the lighting conditions. Did they hear him say anything? Did they all agree on the details? Who counted them? How?

[@MrSeedi76]

Only he didn't "hijack the movement". That's nonsense that has long been debunked especially by the work of Jewish scholars like Pinchas Lapide or Shalom Ben-Chorin.

[@MG-ot2yr]

@@brianholly3555 There's no other details other than the claim of 500 witnesses, that's what makes it so dubious.

[@yotonking2831]

This topic shouldn't even be talked about. It's so idiotic. If I say I saw a dragon fly by yesterday and 500 people saw it too, would people believe me? Ofc not because I'm just one witness.

[@jakeschwartz2514]

Why don’t you believe the history of how it all played out…

[@bas1sokkie604]

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

[@grf73tube]

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

[@mikesandmire211]

I suspect that, to a Christian, "someone could have just removed the body" is perfectly reasonable in the thousand other god myths, but not this one, it's how faith works i guess.

[@invisiblegorilla8631]

Not only that, but if someone wanted to claim the guy resurrected, who of the populace would honestly know where he had originally been buried? Christians make it seem like the entire city would know where Jesus was buried, but from the accounts it seems all followers of Jesus went into hiding, and only the disciples, a couple of women close to Jesus, and Joseph of Arimathea really knew where the tomb was. The narrative could potentially circulate for months without any of the close followers of Jesus hearing anything about it, especially if they were going back to Galilee to continue on with their day jobs.

[@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867]

It is true, and the importance is that it when combined with the other accepted facts create a hard situation to explain. I will list the facts near-unanimously accepted by all historians (and most new testament scholars with Bart being an exception who at one point AGREED with all of these). Jesus existed, Jesus died via crucifixion, Jesus was put in a tomb, Jesus's tomb was later found empty by female followers, and shortly after other followers of Jesus had become convinced they had seen him, the followers of Jesus whom claimed to have seen him held to this account even when it meant death (the deaths of the apostles are well-documented). Now how do we explain these facts, what you are adhering to seems to be the conspiracy theory. The issue with it is that while it explains the empty tomb, how is it that people believed to have seen a risen Jesus? You seem to believe that those who claimed that simply lied, which does get past this problem the issue is what comes next. The disciples who under the conspiracy theory would KNOW they are lying, instead of recanting, would rather die. The conspiracy theory is not really used much in modern times because it frankly fails even atheist historians don't tend to use it. Many would instead use the hallucination theory, but that runs into the issue of the empty tomb (hence why it is important), while not the only issue hallucination theory has the empty tomb literally can't be explained under hallucination theory because even if people had hallucinated the tomb to be empty the romans would simply have showed it to be occupied and put down the early Christian church which had been causing problems. Bart again used to agree with all the historical facts, I can guess as to the reasons for his rejection but that is neither here nor there.

[@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867]

@@mikesandmire211 It is, if it is the best possible explanation for the evidence. In the case of Jesus's body that fails, conspiracy theory is not well-regarded by even atheist historians and I outlined why in another comment.

[@Nocturnalux]

Agreed. In fact, the empty tomb does not even convince people in the actual story.

[@chrisdsouza8685]

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

[@edwardman1742]

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

[@mdav30]

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

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

As Christians depend a lot on Paul and for Paul the resurrection is the centerpiece of his theology I can understand their resistence.

[@jacoblayman2033]

This is an incredibly uneducated take

[@oldpossum57]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 Still, they can recognize an untrue story when they hear one. The jesus character has some wise things to say. You don’t have to believe in gods to select out the good bits, and leave out the bad bits and the silly bits.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

@@oldpossum57 " The jesus character has some wise things to say." True, but these wise things have been said long before Jesus repeated them. Jesus wasn´t a very innovatitive thinker. He might have developed into one had he lived as long as e.g. Hillel.

[@oldpossum57]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 I’m not saying that the jesus character originated any of these. If he were better written though, he would be a good sage character, thought provoking. I do like the bits where he shows other aspects of his character: vandalizing the money changers workplace, telling cronies to “borrow” the burro, destroying the 2000+ hogs but not compensating the owner. These make the character more believable. Same as rather mysterious sketch in the dirt described in the (pseudepigraphic?) Pericope Adulterae. What is he sketching? A design for stackable benches? That is good writing. But the guy goes on and on with vague god stuff. Interminable, and vague as shit. Sounds for all the world like Jordan Peterson! (Hint: your audience are fishermen. , not theology students.)

[@ThemMightyPies]

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

[@franklinamaya8116]

😂He still has lots of point though Freddy!!😅

[@junevandermark952]

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

[@christiancarsh5615]

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

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Contrary to what Ehrman implies, we have four _eyewitness_ accounts of people seeing Jesus alive after he was crucified. Matthew, John, Peter and Paul all gave eyewitness accounts of seeing Jesus alive after he was crucified and buried: • Matthew - Matthew 28:16-20. • John - John 19:35; 20;19, 26; 21:4-14, 20-24; Revelation 1:11-18. • Peter - 1 Peter 1:21. • Paul - 1 Corinthians 15:8. Unlike all the accounts Ehrman relies on to try to discredit Jesus’ post-crucifixion appearances, none of Ehrman's supposed witnesses were even contempories of the people they claimed to have seen. In contrast, three of the four New Testament eyewitness accounts are from people who knew Jesus _before_ he was crucified - and would therefore have been able to recognize him from prior experience - and even the fourth was a contemporary.

[@lesliewilliam3777]

Romulus? Earliest extant report written 500 years after the supposed event V the Gospels? No contest.

[@colinbaxter1022]

My bible only goes to matthew 28:20, I don't have 10 more verses. I'm gonna toss the kjv if I'm missing verses.

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

@@colinbaxter1022 Typo. Fixed.

[@fazerianducati]

You have stories in a book, nothing more.

[@lesliewilliam3777]

@@fazerianducati Well atheist, here's my favorite atheist, Thomas Nagel, telling it as it truly is if your worldview is true: "“Life can be wonderful, but even if it isn’t, death is usually much worse. If it cuts off the possibility of more future goods than future evils for the victim, it is a loss no matter how long he has lived when it happens. And in truth, as Richard Wollheim says, death is a misfortune even when life is no longer worth living. [This is] what’s hard to get hold of: the internal fact that one day this consciousness will black out for good and subjective time will simply stop. My death as an event in the world is easy to think about; the end of my world is not. There will be a last day, a last hour, a last minute of consciousness, and that will be it. Off the edge.” (View from Nowhere, Oxford University Press, NY, 1986, pp. 224-5.) Be brave as THAT day gets closer and closer to its arrival.

[@Tmanaz480]

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

[@resurrectionnerd]

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

[@rsr789]

Also, the gospels are completely anonymous, which helps their credibility not one iota.

[@Jarige2]

The funny thing is that we can focus on these appearances, and I'd agree with you that the nature of these appearances is not talked about at all. But you cannot deny that 1 Cor 15 also at the same time claims that Jesus rose from the dead. So whatever appearances they were, somehow they convinced the people who've seen these appearances. Apparently, back in those days, they were considered authoritative and reliable enough to be convinced of His resurrection. Now if these appearances were indeed "feel the presence" type of sensory experiences, then why on earth would that be convincing enough to those people. Moreover, why would they be convincing to others who haven't had these experiences?

[@Jarige2]

@@rsr789 Could you clarify how and why the church fathers are unanimous about who wrote them? Even if they did share doubts about the authors of other Christian writings?

[@resurrectionnerd]

@@Jarige2 People back then believed visions, dreams and revelations were real. It was before the enlightenment. That's all that needs to be said. But if you need more, you can lookup sources on how Second Temple Judaism was a visionary culture. Maurice Casey's book Jesus of Nazareth has a section about this in the chapter on the Resurrection, I think around page 489. This is something that is ignored in apologetics. The cultural context and beliefs are very relevant here.

[@Jarige2]

@@resurrectionnerd "People back then believed visions, dreams and revelations were real" You're going to have to back this up with more I guess. Dreams, even? Dreams could convince people that someone rose from the dead? You're saying visions of a dead person would convince a person in that culture that this person rose from the dead? The cultural background in first century Palestine is that the Jews did not believe in bodily resurrection before the end of times. The Jews in those times, believed that after the end of times, people would be resurrected. Not before that. And the expectation of a Messiah was quite different from Jesus as well, the legend of Jesus being Messiah was simply very unlikely to have been born out of the cultural context of the Jews in that time. It seems to me quite foolish that in such a cultural context, a mere vision could convince someone that someone was resurrected AND Messiah. Something really, really strange happened there.

[@johnsheehan5109]

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

[@1389Chopin]

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

[@njhoepner]

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

[@ramebgm1394]

Had it been foretold that Elvis will come back to life before he was born? It's a different story with Jesus.

[@njhoepner]

@@ramebgm1394 It was "foretold" if one wants it to be that way. The great thing about religious prophecies is that they're so vague one can reverse engineer whatever one wants into them. It remains a fact that claims are not evidence, and all we have for this are claims, and such claims are common, and you reject all of the others without even thinking about it...a clear case of culturally-imposed confirmation bias.

[@ramebgm1394]

@@njhoepner here you did the same claiming prophecy is vague. What makes your claim more right than the desciples who had sacrificed their life for what they have seen. Wouldn't they try to avoid the most brutal death,If the evidence were not clear enough. Who is more bias here? And, have you not listened to William Lane Craig response?

[@njhoepner]

@@ramebgm1394 Feel free to cite me a prophecy that isn't vague or open to multiple interpretations. Take all the time you need. As for "the disciples who had sacrificed their lives," there's no real evidence for that. In your bible we have ONE instance in which all of the twelve were warned and flogged...after that, ten of the twelve disappear from the account and are never heard from again. Shortly thereafter, it's the Peter show until about chapter 9 of Acts, then it's the Paul show. Nothing about any of the others. The idea that they "sacrificed their life" is church tradition (legend) that emerged centuries later, without evidence or backing. So even if I took your bible as literal truth, we hear of no further deaths or suffering or anything for any of the twelve...Peter and Paul are both still alive when the account ends, and as I mentioned the rest have disappeared. So the argument is weak. William Lane Craig argues exactly like you do - he starts with the presumption that the bible is word-for-word literal truth, THEN he adds in whatever he feels he needs from church tradition/legend ("all of the disciples died for their beliefs"), and then declares that he has proven the bible is word-for-word literal truth...a textbook example of circular reasoning.

[@ramebgm1394]

@@njhoepner The birth of Jesus Long before Jesus’s birth, ancient prophets foretold many events related to His role and mission. These prophecies were given so people would recognize Jesus when He came and have faith in Him as their Savior. Isaiah in the Old Testament wrote about Jesus 700 years before His birth: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). He further declared, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). The life of Jesus Other Old Testament prophets foretold Jesus’s life in remarkable detail. Micah knew the Savior would be born in Bethlehem (see Micah 5:2). Hosea spoke of the time Jesus would spend in Egypt as a child (see Hosea 11:1). The book of Psalms talks about how Jesus would speak in parables and would be rejected by His own people (see Psalm 69:8; 78:2). Another of Isaiah’s beautiful prophecies spoke of Jesus’s role and sacrifice: “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. ... He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:4-5). The death and resurrection of Jesus All of God’s prophets have testified of Jesus. Old Testament prophets described events that would occur hundreds of years later. Isaiah foretold how Jesus would be mocked, spat upon, and struck (see Isaiah 50:6). The prophet Zechariah knew that Jesus would be crucified and yet would pray for His enemies (see Zechariah 12:10). Most importantly, prophets throughout the Bible taught God’s message that Jesus Christ would be resurrected (see Isaiah 25:8) and that because of Him, we will be resurrected too (see Isaiah 26:19; Job 19:26).

[@nativeatheist6422]

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

[@MgtowRubicon]

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

[@brotherben4357]

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

[@GRP--gw1yl]

Is this a good or bad thing?

[@brotherben4357]

@@GRP--gw1ylshits on = bad-mouths them.

[@shassett79]

Craig reminds me of a certain stripe of evangelical preacher who can say awful things that nobody in his audience notices because he grins and does the "aw shucks, bless his heart" routine the whole time.

[@brotherben4357]

@@shassett79 I thought something very similar while reading the comments section of a new Inspiring Philosophy interview with him.

[@werneropperman5342]

Wow. And you don't mention what Dawkins has to say to people of faith? Not even comparable. Hypocrite you.

[@gerardtrigo380]

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

[@geoffpoole483]

There weren't many aircraft involved in WW1.

[@Spiritof_76]

@@geoffpoole483 Sure there were, just not as many as WW2, or during the American Revolution where Trump claimed the colonial army took over the airports from the redcoats.

[@oldpossum57]

Inasmuch as the Fatima, Portugal miracle took place in 13 October 1917, many Allied and German airplanes would have been flying over Passchendaele, as the First great Battle at that place had just started. 1900+ kilometres away. Given the limited fuel of 1917 scouts, observation and bomber aircraft, I doubt any Allied or German aircraft were overflying Fatima that day. On the other hand, had the sun zigzagged around the sky, we would all have died.

[@TerribleTom113]

I think Mormonism is the perfect example to use in response to Craigh using this argument. In Mormonism, you have signed and sworn affidavits of first-hand witnesses as members of groups appearances of the resurrected Jesus, the golden plates, etc. These are modern, eye-witness, group testimonies, and many of the individuals endured a great deal of hardships because of their beliefs, which they never recanted. We have these witnesses corroborating their stories across personal correspondences and public documents. We have FAR more eye-witness testimony for the validity of Mormonism than we do for the biblical claims of the resurrection. Does WLC convert to Mormonism because of the strength of this eye-witness testimony? Of course not. In this case, because Special Pleading, he would be perfectly happy to dismiss THOSE eye-witnesses as being mistaken or lying, but with Criag's own far weaker eye-witness claims, we're supposed to accept them as unassailable.

[@RiffKrsna]

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

[@freddiereadie30]

In the Court of Law, the gospels would be classified as hearsay, similar to the hadiths in Islam.

[@oldpossum57]

@@freddiereadie30 or the suras, for that matter. As I understand it Mohammed goes to a cave, gets a recital from an angel, recites the dictation to someone who is literate, who writes it down. Not a chance anything went awry there!

[@romulanwang]

@@freddiereadie30 The irony would be that one would swear on the bible that the stories are true, hence it would be huge. circular argment.

[@freddiereadie30]

@oldpossum57 Rumor has it that when Muhammad recited the dictation to his companions, they found it mostly gibberish. So they concocted their own version, polished it, and ended up with the final Uthman version decades later. Ironically, some of his learned companions were Christians and were also well versed with the Torah and other ancient stories.

[@freddiereadie30]

@@romulanwang It's probably much better to swear on a mathematical equation instead. Like, i swear on Newton's Law. 😅

[@torgeirmolaug196]

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

[@rsr789]

We don't. It's a special pleading claim made for the bible and only for the bible.

[@MrSeedi76]

​@@rsr789nope. The special pleading is actually used against the Bible not for it. No other text of antiquity has been scrutinized to this extent. Even non Christian historians criticize Christian theologians for not believing their own sources.

[@cobrasys]

@@MrSeedi76 Incorrect. The Bible makes claims that are completely unsubstantiated by any actual evidence. What little the Bible does get right was proven with sources outside of it, and a long time after those claims were written down. The 4 facts mentioned in the video - that a man named Jesus existed, that he was a teacher of ethics, that he was killed via crucifixion and that people _claimed_ to have seen him after his death - are accepted as such not because they're in the Bible, but because _actual evidence_ for them was found.

[@PaulWallis]

I'm with Bart. There is a canonical story and no external coroboration.

[@lemnisgate8809]

What are you talking about all the letters and documents that make up the New Testament were collected and composed into a single volume which became the canon would you rather they still be scattered throughout the region so you can understand this. If I gather all the literature associated with the American civil war and put it into one book does that make it any less true?

[@PaulWallis]

@@lemnisgate8809 I think you are missing a piece of the puzzle. The canon was formed on the basis of dates, authorial claims and conformity to the emerging orthodoxy. It was not a collection od every Christian and secular text relating to Jesus. By the end of the C4th when the canon was formeally ratified there were many other Christian texts which could have been included and which were not. The point I was making is that there is no coroboration of the orthodox/canonical story outside of texts written by the Church. Where are the contemporaneous reports or records of Jesus? They don't exist. The closest we have is Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny the Younger describing the beliefs and praxis of the early Christians. That's not the same thing. That's the historicity problem that Christianity has.

[@lemnisgate8809]

@ I gave a summery, I know exactly how the canon was compiled as I’d hope most people here have also done the research to know before speaking. Where are the contemporary reports of Alexander the Great or Caesar for that matter there are more accounts and attestations for the life of Jesus than both these rulers combined yet no one questions the historicity of them, mind you Jesus in the eyes of the world was merely are carpenter or shepherd and Jerusalem was a minor kingdom one of many Rome had conquered yet look at the wealth of knowledge we have of it as opposed to empires that surrounded it.

[@BScott7220]

@@PaulWallis I'm waiting for the contemporaneous accounts of zombies walking the earth, which supposedly also happened around that time.

[@BScott7220]

@@lemnisgate8809 Those other historical figures, the vast majority of them anyway, were not known for performing supernatural acts. If they had been, most rationale people would hold those accounts to the same rigor atheist/agnostics do the biblical account. 1,000 people attesting to a man being king is a 'lesser' claim than 1,000 people saying that same man walked on water or resurrected the dead.

[@markkjacobson]

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

[@TorianTammas]

Pilates residence was in Caesarea. So we have zero evidence that he was in the area. Nor would the highest Roman official spent his time talking with some criminal. Nor would say Roman official let some crowd vote on which criminal should go unpunished. A Roman official had crucified both Barabas and Jesus side by side. The fan fiction story was invented by uninformed authors or they simply thought their fiction would be enough for the uninformed cultists.

[@KellyBergerDeusVult]

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

[@TheOldWeigh]

What is the standard of evidence needed to satisfy your standard of truth?

[@threestars2164]

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

[@oli1181]

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

[@candyman5912]

The difference is, one is honest, logical, analytical truth seeking. The other is smoke and mirrors, half truths, bluster and outright lies to win people over. A bit like apologetics really.

[@rjdcarroll]

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

[@paulschlachter4313]

Absolutely.

[@psycho6542]

Richard carrier as well

[@Sportliveonline]

you have different writers #~writing on the same theme they would have to agree on the the same story and know each others work and to achieve that would have to be a miracle in itself

[@sionsmedia8249]

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

[@oldpossum57]

Clark Kent is an unassuming newspaper reporter. Peter Parker is high school student. David was tending sheep. Noah was just a guy minding his own business. The gospellers go to great trouble to discover that Jesus is descended from royalty on both sides.

[@iqgustavo]

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

[@ghostninja5035]

ai slop nice pfp tho

[@palmharbor6317]

Bart is a Historian. Love-You-Man!

[@joannware6228]

So sweet.

[@lawrencegreen8952]

Bart D Ehrman is a cultural treasure. Amid an ocean of the clergy's bullshit lies, we have the intellectual and spiritual security of Ehrman's rigorous intellectual honesty, AND he, as a non-believer, can afford to tell the unvarnished truth. Some prominent Christian leaders hold jobs in which they are contractually obligated to support specific views and doctrines. What a difference between the messages of those who can afford to tell the truth and those who cannot.

[@blackyjack5819]

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

[@reeseexplains8935]

Paulogia responded to it.

[@joachimschoder]

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

[@potatopotatow]

It was the exact same thing with “election fraud” in the US 2020 election. TONS of claims of fraud and ballot tampering, etc, but no actual evidence. “There’s so many claims, therefore the election was stolen”

[@sk-un5jq]

A moon landing denier you say?... kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZuZkmONp9ebZ8k kzbin.info/www/bejne/gaHYfKhpe5V1rLs

[@Rain-Dirt]

This is why I like both of these individuals. They are not afraid to muse and question. What I am not used to see Bart doing, because this seems to be a different type of conversation, is his reasoning approach and sharpness more displayed. Which I personally can really appreciate.

[@TimBee100]

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

[@conceptsound5]

Errm could explain more about the "then had to go back and make up the stuff about his miraculous birth and left off making up stuff about his teenage years and his early 20s.Then they had to make up some nonsense about his being in Asia or England or other such stuff." Its reductionist way of explaining the gap of Jesus' life up until his ministry

[@Jolomon]

The fact that you think Jesus (probably) didn’t exist already says a lot. Your objection to the gospels because they didn’t say anything about his young self is misunderstanding the goal of the NT. The gospels are meant to record Jesus’ life and teachings for future generations to follow. They’re not concerned about what Jesus liked to do it’s irrelevant. Second, do you know how hard it was to write stuff down? This isn’t 21st century where everyone can write and has access to paper anywhere. You expect them to write down unnecessary stuff when that’s irrelevant to salvation. It’d cost much more money to copy and produce etc. It’d be way more expensive to make manuscripts to write down all that. And they were being persecuted. I feel I’ve said enough about why they don’t talk about Jesus’ favorite hobby or something irrelevant. That’s like asking why H!tler didn’t say anything about his hobbies when he was 13 or which ice cream’s his favorite in “M3in K@mpf” that’s not the point of the book. (Maybe he did idk I’m just making a point)

[@occasm]

spot on dude...it's all mythology but for some reason Christians think theirs is better than all the others.

[@karenryder6317]

Bart's account of the evolution of Pilate's response to Jesus' crucifixion over the course of the years from the earliest writings to each successive writing is a good example of what you say here about Christian beliefs being made up over the course of time. Another example comes from the scribes copying and recopying the New Testament. What started out as only anecdotal margin notes by one scribe were incorporated by the next one into the actual text because the account sounded to him like something Jesus would have said.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

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

[@Gabriel-uq6iq]

Made up crimes, lies told by some priests after the babylonian captivity to keep the lower classes subdued to their will.

[@werneropperman5342]

How can you call something immoral without a transcendent objective morality?

[@Julian0101]

@@werneropperman5342 Fun fact: If there is a transcendent objective morality, that means the christian god, who endorses immorality like slavery and genocide, is demonstrably immoral. Curious how the moral argument ends up debunking your magical fairy.

[@werneropperman5342]

@@Julian0101 even if what you say is true then it is within God's authority to determine what is moral and what is not. It is ultimately what it means to be God. On the other hand, naturalists can't ground objective morality and therefore they have no justification in calling others immoral. Hope you can grasp that.

[@Julian0101]

@@werneropperman5342 Nope, if it is is within god's subjective authority to determine what is moral and what is not. Then your morality stops being *objective.* And thus, how can you call something immoral without a transcendent objective morality? Aint it curious how apologists cannot answer the same question you guys raise? On the other hand, it doesnt matter if naturalists cant ground objective morality (they can with moral realism, but it doesnt matter for this topic), you already demonstrated your position definetively cannot do it. And thus, just like no one needs to know what is the square root of 7 to know is not 2, or know how thunders are created to know they dont come from a magical hammer, No one needs to _ground objective morality_ to know your god doesnt work as an answer.

[@andrejuthe]

Bart Erhmans is stating untruths! There is no eyewittnes accunts for Apollonius of Tyana being raised from the dead! The comparison between Jesus and Apollonius of Tyana are faulty. There are no known contemporary eyewitness accounts of Apollonius of Tyana in contrast to Jesus. Most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana comes from the writings of Philostratus, a 3rd-century Greek writer who composed the biography The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (around 220 CE), about 100 years after Apollonius’ death. In contrast the sources of Jesus was contemporary with him and had known him for a large part of their life. Philostratus' account is based on earlier sources, including writings attributed to Apollonius’ disciple Damis, but these sources are generally considered to be unreliable or semi-legendary. Philostratus’ biography that mention Apollonius of Tyana is filled with stories of miracles, mystical experiences, and philosophical teachings, leading some scholars to view it more as hagiography (a biography of a saintly figure) rather than a factual historical record. While there are references to Apollonius in other ancient sources, such as Roman historian Cassius Dio, these too are not firsthand accounts. So, while Apollonius is mentioned in various ancient texts, there are no direct, verified eyewitness accounts from his lifetime in contrast to Jesus. I find it intellectually dishonest by Ehrman to pretend that they can be compared.

[@jsmall10671]

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

[@BrianHoff04]

Then I guess you've not watched many videos like this. Anyone who makes claims of supernatural events is making a claim of something extraordinary. It is on them to provide evidence to back up their claim.

[@carlodefalco7930]

You don’t listen to many then …. What “ high “ level is this guy ?. He left Christianity.. 🤔🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️

[@johnbinford6706]

That's a dubious distinction. We accept things all the time based on testimony.

[@r0ky_M]

@@johnbinford6706 Do you accept Bigfoots existence based on living witness testimonies?

[@themisfitoddity]

perhaps you haven't had enough reading then. otherwise you would've known that it indeed is evidence - but only for those accepting (the claim, the call, whatever). of course it is not by any means a pure scientific evidence as it was not written by a scolar or a group of such people, but rather is a written compilation of earlier oral memories of number of witnesses and their followers.

[@stevenkipikash1097]

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

[@gehrig7593]

You should follow your own advice

[@psycho6542]

Welcome to the rational side

[@sparrow3026]

Assuming that Christianity does not uphold kindness and is bigoted shows how uneducated you are about anything related to it, what a dumb comment@@possumface2425

[@jbd82]

Behold. The prophet has spoken@@possumface2425

[@Bronco541]

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

[@pete6769]

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

[@FlipjevanTiel]

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

[@GRP--gw1yl]

You should watch Craig’s response.

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@GRP--gw1ylwhy? That’s basically it!

[@GRP--gw1yl]

@@chefchaudard3580 Wdym? I mean Craig’s response in capturing Christianity. He does a deep dive there and responds to almost all Bart’s responses to him.

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@GRP--gw1yl it does not change the facts. What is said by FlipevanTiel above is just facts. No comment can change that!

[@FlipjevanTiel]

@@GRP--gw1yl This one, I presume? kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKeanq2Kg5Wrprs Well, I'll sit down for it, I guess. I'll be looking for his arguments. It starts good by him being impressed with Alex. 😆 I have a big Deja Vu so far. I must have seen at least a part of it. Yep, he's doing the same as what I just explained is happening; "The gospel accounts, which were written down, within a century of the eye-witnesses..." Sure, but by whom? And who is claiming that there were eye-witnesses in the first place or that they were in any way reliable? Also fun; Craig is saying that they were talking about other facts, than he always talks about and which are harder to refute as supporting of the resurrection. Yes, but those are also harder to substantiate. In fact, there is no evidence and hardly anything like corresponding testimonies on them, at all. It's not even hearsay. Cutting off, just before Ehrman is going to give the reason to doubt there was any grave at all. Then saying he didn't give a reason. Yes he did, but you cut off the video, before he did. "If the shroud of Turin were authentic, does it supports the burial account.." Well, it would support A burial, from around that time, if it wasn't so clearly a fake from medieval times. "At least six independent sources for the empty tomb"? All in the bible, right? The book full of stories written by early Christians, who have the resurrection as their core belief. You have to read between the lines, a bit, or a lot: www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2019/independent-sources-of-the-empty-tomb Absolutely no information there about who saw what and when and how we could confirm it to be true, other than that it shows that the idea was part of the culture. "The stories of Romulus and Apollonius of Tyana are mythical, but there is good historical evidence for ........" Only in the Bible! So why is that evidence for them not being mythical? Just because the stories of multiple authors are similar, if you ignore all the differences, doesn't make them true. Finding a forum, where comic fans discussed the stories of Spider-Man, will provide lots of texts, with similar details, and factually correct details about New York, from different authors, that would prove Spider-Man was real, for a guy like Craig, 2000 years in the future. His arguments that some crucified people were allowed to be buried are reasonable. However, Jewish customs don't apply when Romans are in power. It depends on how much the Romans felt like defiling the bodies of certain individuals and how much they wanted to disrespect the people associated with the crucified victims. Crushing a cult is a good reason to do that. "You don't believe people unless you have a reason to doubt it." That could be a principle to reject lying, but these are primitive people, they can be 100% honest and 100% WRONG. Everything about 'the 500' is just wild speculation; assuming a lot on little information. Comparing the reliability of a claim of his daughter, about something that can happen any day, to a claim in ancient texts, while we have uncountable ancient texts which are just myths. The fact that there are several versions of the myths, doesn't say anything about them having really happened. Refer back to my Spider-Man analogy. Refuting Ehrman's explanation about the origin of Christianity by just saying "It's remarkable that people believe this stuff.". Is that an argument? As an atheist, I think the same, but I don't consider it a convincing argument. The story of the resurrection would be much more credible if Jesus has walked the earth for another few decades. He didn't, his appearances are very sketchy. If your messiah, that you've expected would save your people, gets brutally murdered, you will make up a noble story about him, to not be called a gullible idiot, possibly subconsciously. Ehrman compares the stories of a resurrected Jesus with UFO sightings and alien abductions. Craig does not say anything that would discredit them and corroborate the Jesus sightings. Using their methods to determine what's true, they should either believe the claims of UFO sightings and alien abductions or not believe the claims in the bible. Justifying the differences in the bible as eye-witnesses having different stories like "This person says that the lights were on and this person says that the lights were on.", but that's what I started with; it's not the eye-witnesses, it's at best the police officer, who took their testimonies when he was a rookie, and write about it in his memoires, when he is retired. Confusing unsuspecting laymen is definitely not Ehrman's, but Craigs job.

[@charleshinkley6]

The gospels are, at least largely, demonstrably works of literary fiction. Why do people cling so desperately to certain passages being historical, despite there being no independent evidence in support?

[@ballasog]

Well a couple points that are implausible on their face are a lot more reasonable than one might think at first glance. The Bethlehem trip in Luke seems absurd, yes. But fundamentally what is the story about? It's a bout a husband dragging his wife on a trip to Bethlehem on Christmas Eve and being too stupid to make a hotel reservation. How can that story not be true? And Matthew 27:52-53 describes a Zombie Apocalypse. So if Jesus turned and was seen walking with the horde, it becomes a commonplace event. Zombie Apocalypses are maybe the most frequent large-scale events there are.

[@robertnorth1681]

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

[@Sportliveonline]

you have different writers #~writing on the same theme they would have to agree on the the same story and know each others work and to achieve that would have to be a miracle in itself

[@Seapatico]

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

[@jaromsmiss]

whats wrong with pushing back unless you're insecure about the subject?

[@Seapatico]

@@jaromsmiss No, for sure. That's what I was trying to say. I'm not usually insecure about these conversations, but I found myself feeling defensive and not really knowing why. And so I appreciate Alex for being willing to do that and not just quietly nod. It challenged me.

[@strumspicks2456]

A lot of that questioning really sounded like Alex was doing a questioning exercise entirely unrelated to what a historian's job is, surprisingly out of touch quite frankly. More a push to the side than a pushback imho

[@potatopotatow]

@@strumspicks2456yea it’s like he doesn’t understand what historical evidence is

[@gehrig7593]

Makes me wonder why he is very soft with religious apologists lately.

[@JoeGamer81]

This is such a good channel!

[@user-gk9lg5sp4y]

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

[@deloford]

😂😂😂

[@Ploskkky]

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

[@GRP--gw1yl]

Stick to the arguments please😅

[@christaylor9095]

State your opinion as you choose, please 😅

[@Ploskkky]

@@GRP--gw1yl As I did.

[@bradthompson5383]

Craig is a conman with no sense of ethics.

[@tommymccann7252]

Alex you were amazing in this interview! I must say I was caught off guard with the extent that Bart separated the gospel from historical literature. He was the first scholar I saw that talked about the gospels naturally being historical documents regardless of their accuracy.

[@chriscope2724]

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

[@littlebitofhope1489]

I'm glad someone else thought that too.

[@tma2001]

the clue is that the Bible is an selective collection - ya know folks who collected a bunch of tales that suported certain motifs.

[@joel20596]

what else do you want for evidence?, remember its ancient history, do you want a photo

[@chriscope2724]

@@joel20596 I guess the only thing would be independent corroborating accounts, as Bart Ehrman was suggesting. The fact that it's ancient history does make it difficult to prove anything either way, I guess it would be another mistake to say that something is more likely to be true if we're unable to test it.

[@joel20596]

@@chriscope2724 fair point

[@danielrussell9416]

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

[@RodneyW]

That statement appears to be incorrect. There is evidence - including physical evidence - that (at least in Judea) the Romans allowed the Jews to bury crucified people.

[@BroDaveMartinSRBC]

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

[@neclark08]

...the same applies to "Paul" (Saul of Tarsus) -- I shake my head whenever I hear highly-educated Linguists & Bible Scholars swallowing the notion that Paul had been "The ONLY First-Person Eyewitness" of the Post-Resurrected Juh-HEEZ-Zuss...except that Paul had NEVER seen J.H.C. up-close- nor heard his speaking voice -- so he Could NOT have believably I.D.'d the "Being" by/with whom Paul insisted he had been taken-up to Heaven... WHY should ANYone give credence to Paul's Power-Grabbing claim to have "Recoglized" the Figurehead of the Religion Paul would later Snatch-Away from Jesus' Original Followers.

[@airforcex9412]

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

[@noeditbookreviews]

I always enjoy hearing from Bart.

[@angusmcculloch6653]

"We have several historical figures for which those four facts are true. Romulus--I don't know if he was a historical figure . . . " My favorite part where Ehrman's first example doesn't meet the four facts.

[@tedgrant2]

Religion has made these men rich in slightly different ways. The debate is welcomed, as it generates more money. And they don't really care what Jesus said (Matthew 19:23)

[@speculawyer]

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

[@bejamen14]

Why would they not? Jesus had more than 12 followers….

[@boxscreen7829]

He had thousands of followers, he fed 5,000 men (not counting women and children) after a sermon. So probably 10-15,000 people

[@PIA-tj5hc]

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

[@MATTIASALM]

This is actually a great example of epistemological reasoning at its best. What can you establish as facts, and when do you start smuggling in claims?

[@thelonelypamphleteer5722]

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

[@torreyintahoe]

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

[@bejamen14]

If you presuppose God doesn’t exist then yes

[@torreyintahoe]

@@bejamen14 Or if you presuppose reality.

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

Arguing about whether there was a resurrection or not is a bit like arguing about whether Santa Claus wears socks. And, this is one area I disagree with Bart: There is no reliable eyewitness* or tangible historical cases for the existence of a person named Jesus who lived in the first century and did these things. * Not that eyewitness accounts are reliable in the first place!

[@salembuckeye9030]

Dang. Why did all the miracles happen in the good ole days never when cell phone cameras are around.

[@desertsand8778]

They do happen

[@salembuckeye9030]

@@desertsand8778 Put one up on this channel.

[@tornay131]

​@@desertsand8778like what?

[@desertsand8778]

@tornay131 look up Bruce Van Netta

[@salembuckeye9030]

@@desertsand8778 Please provide evidence

[@johnwallis8010]

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

[@psycho6542]

Agree, he would be all over this

[@EllieBanks333]

I doubt you'll ever get it. I've definitely become certain Ehrman will never agree to debate Carrier. He does his absolute best to ignore his existence.

[@ATOK_]

That would be awesome

[@DerickTherving]

Carrier is a clown

[@NickG-x6t]

@@DerickTherving Why insult clowns?

[@tmesisguffPl3ase]

Alex is very sincere and you can tell he takes the statements seriously and allows facts to show but his guest just outright refused to do so.

[@SecretEyeSpot]

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

[@DoctorOnkelap]

Ask Craig about the horde of zombies marching on jerusalem.

[@JD-ij8bz]

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

[@kevinknox1414]

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

[@genevostok]

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

[@majmage]

Yeah I bring that up often on the topic of the resurrection: the possibility of Jesus being impersonated (which is hinted in the gospels by his own followers not immediately recognizing him, which might be what you're talking about).

[@diegog1853]

Honestly I think that people having a vivid imagination or dreams, coupled with very imprecise oral tradition is a more likely explanation. Christianity doesn't need to be a conspiracy for it to be based on a falsehood

[@karel8y]

Luke 24:37 (Jesus appears to the disciples) : 'Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself!' John 20:27 (Jesus appears to Thomas) : 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side.'

[@genevostok]

@@majmage My guess it that there is probably a gap between the death of Jesus and the start of the Jesus cult, and that gap is probably explained by someone appearing and claiming to be Jesus, and that there were probably two 'groups' of followers - those that professed to follow him when he came to Jerusalem (and so only probably knew him for mere days) and those that had followed him from weeks or months before he went to Jerusalem. And the division internally between the 'new' converts who said, yes, of course this new guy is Jesus, and the old ones who went, no, this can't be Jesus, was probably at the heart of the division in proto-Christianity before Paul.

[@genevostok]

@@diegog1853 I suspect actually this is the only thing that 'kicks off' Christianity because clearly the most important fact in very early Christianity was resurrection, and there had to be some kind of event, and there's not a good reason to think this was just collectively imagined to have happened. I mean it could go that way, but it seems less likely than someone coming later and claiming to be Jesus ,and the new followers that didn't know him well accepted him.

[@Karazaarwe]

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

[@ecyranot]

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

[@chrispysaid]

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

[@gheller2261]

What in the world are you talking about? This was a respectful back and forth. It's called a conversation. My guess is that you don't like what Bart is saying because you prefer to embrace fairy tales as factual.

[@maghercushag1902]

Resurrection. Not so extraordinary in Jerusalem at that time because there were already many risen dead wandering about since after the crucifixion - Matthew 27:52

[@Truth-Be-Told-USA]

lol 😂

[@NickG-x6t]

Oddly enough, this zombie invasion of Jerusalem isn't much stressed by Christian apologists!