William Lane Craig vs. Bart Ehrman - Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

reasonablefaith... - William Lane Craig vs. Bart Ehrman: "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?" College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, March 28, 2006. Craig's famous debate with Bart Erhman. More here: www.youtube.com...
Transcript: www.reasonablef...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablef...
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Add Reasonable Faith On Facebook: / reasonablefaithorg

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

@DeJay14 Well, read Isaiah. The book was written centuries before Christ. When they found the Dead Sea scrolls, they found a whole book of Isaiah intact and it was word for word everything of the book of Isaiah that we have today.

[@bencabestuff]

Thank you for posting these videos!

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

The thing I wonder why is that William Lane Craig never brings up the prophesies in the Old Testament. I think that prophesies are one of the biggest sources Christians CAN use for apologetics.

[@junaid7355]

I think that is because most of the prophecies that Christians think Jesus fulfilled are said to not have been about Jesus. Jews and agnostics always tell us to read the context and when read in context it does seem they weren't about Jesus. You can read all the prophecy in Mathews that he claims Jesus fulfilled. He even mentions those prophecies that are not in the old testament. Don't know where he got those from. Check the last verses of Mathew chapter 2.

[@trejeancalloway-ri1in]

Like be fr how would the Jews not know their own messiah🤣🤣

[@Jeff-vn1xz]

The prophesy in Isaiah that's supposed to be about Jesus explicitly says the "servant" is Israel, among other things. Bart would have argued this.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

@@Jeff-vn1xz it literally cannot be Israel. Isiah goes between 3 figures: Israel, righteousness remnant and the suffering servant. Israel is known to a complete adulterous and isolatorous sinful nation and the branch of Jesse in Isaiah 53 is about an individual who had no wrongs. It literally cannot be about Israel

[@Jeff-vn1xz]

@@BackToOrthodoxy Isreal is repeatedly referred to as the servant in Isaiah Isaiah 41:8-9 "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, ‘You are my servant; I have chosen you and have not rejected you.’" Isaiah 44:1-2 "But now listen, Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen. This is what the Lord says- he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen." The context of Isaiah is the invasions and exiles by the Assyrians and Babylonians. Jewish scholars interpret the "suffering servant" as Israel collectively, and the sinners as the individuals. The nation of Israel suffers for the sins of the individuals.

[@nathanaelsebo2136]

In my opinion, Craig demolished Ehrman in this debate. Craig presented a coherent, reasonable case for the resurrection. Ehrman, on the other hand, after employing Hume's failed arguments against the probability of miracles, kept changing his arguments and finally tried to attack Craig's argument on the basis of his theological associations(i.e. the origin fallacy)

[@Jeff-vn1xz]

I think this is contrary to what happened. Bart explained his point against Hume's argument in terms of validating historical evidence. You can not validate theological claims, which Jesus' miracles are. Such claims require a certain theological belief that one could rebut with differing theology. The probability that Craig tries to argue necessitates said theological belief. Without the belief that God can interfere in the order of reality it's the most improbable, as Bart argues. Furthermore, the theological belief is rooted in taking the bible as true, making it circular. The resurrection is probable because the background information is true, but the background information is only assumed to be true through theological belief (thinking the bible is true). The Bible is true because the Bible is true, so God can do that. I could argue that God interfering in His own order is absurd and lends itself to skepticism of the natural order, in which case the probability changes

[@hammerman2006]

love ur vids. Keep them coming!!

[@truthbknwn]

Yes the tomb was empty, but THAT'S NOT IN QUESTION. The question is WHY was it empty (eg. GRAVE ROBBERY?). Jhn 20:2 has Mary M. reporting to the disciples "'They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they've laid him!" This is in spite of an earthquake and an angelic announcemt that he was missing due to having risen (Matt. 28:5). Watch my video "Was Jesus' Resurrection Physical or Spiritual?" for more.

[@quakerman7]

At 34:00, Ehrman ... what a dufus. Miracles are highly improbable. Has anybody heard Ravi Zacharias or John Lennox speak on this? The whole point of a miracle is that its very unusualness highlights its as a distinct event. We know something big has happened because something Big has happened. If nothing Big ever happened, we wouldn't even have the concept of 'miracle' in our lexicon. A miracle, I say, is no less probable than Existence itself.

[@Wedlockvideos]

@EnlightenedReader: How is assuming naturalism in an historical context a fallacy? A naturalistic assumption is common to just about everyone including you, except for cases on special pleading.There simply isn't a rational reason to assume a miracle. It's the LEAST likely explanation by it's very definition.

[@JPGdesigngroup]

The fact that the people didn't understand who Yeshua was just proves Isaiah 53 to be true.

[@drcraigvideos]

@HeroOfChristArchives I'm actually not Dr. Craig. But I'm aware of that video. Thanks. Here's a rebuttal: watch?v=JX0CBq4qjuo

[@haleighsturman2239]

Bart just kept trying to get craig on some weird technicality and even that failed. He didnt do as good a job as i expect

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

@Falcondick69 But we have the Dead Sea Scrolls that prove that they were. There is no scholar in existence that says the Dead Sea Scrolls are post-Christian era.

[@davidcardano963]

Craig is an evangelist dressed up as a historian.. Not a completely honest position one would think but quite common none the less.

[@lukefantini9770]

You cannot deny the evidence based on a historians prior knowledge. He is looking at the objective fact and making a claim that the resurrection is the best explanation, not that this is sure fire proof it 100% happened. Craig is one of the strongest NT historians on this topic while Erhman actually has the opposite problem, he is so unwilling to accept the most logical conclusion that the evidence required for Jesus's resurrection to be true is a claim that no history would ever hold up to. That is why Craig calls him fallacious because his standard for this one event is so high, but if he held his stand up to any other history we now know nothing about our past.

[@noahalban6384]

Ehrman is a textual critic dressed up as a historian.

[@Chaowdur]

@HeroOfChristArchives Craig isn't a creationist and most archbishops and priests aren't equipped with the philosophical belt that Craig holds.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

@Falcondick69 That is where, my friend, I don't bother wasting my time. ;)

[@stanleybadams]

I advise that you work through the PhD dissertation of Thomas B Warren by Vanderbilt University. It is strong on Suffering and that all of those items that are dis-allowed by philosophers thus proving that God cannot exist. I do hold that no logical defense of the existence of God can adequately be made without understanding this material and using it in a proper manner. This material is largely responsible for Anthony Flew moving into a deistic position just before his death.

[@spocklover110]

@Templarforever -he seems like a deist. Ehrman is an agnostic.

[@BackToOrthodoxy]

@ShaneChiswick 2008?

[@Wedlockvideos]

@BTW, Whether god exists or not has absolutely NO bearing on whether or not miracles can or can't occur- nor does it change them being the LEAST likely to occur by their very definition.Just FYI.

[@kiroshakir7935]

How If God doesn't exist Miracles are impossible since there is no power that can make a miracle If God exists Miracles are possible because there is a power that can achieve them and more importantly this power can be directed

[@Wedlockvideos]

@@kiroshakir7935 What do you mean “ no other power”? A miracle is a supposed event that violates known law

[@kiroshakir7935]

@@Wedlockvideos I didn't say "no other power" God by definition is an omnipotent being Omnipotence means having infinite power In other words it means being able to do anything so long The action is logically coherent For example married bachelors Is logically incoherent and self contradictory But the resurrection of Jesus doesn't lead to any logical contradictions Unlike a married bachelor And therefore by necessity has possible existence (possible existence in philosophy is any state of affairs that doesn't contradict the laws of logic) And if an omnipotent being exist Then it logically follows that this being can resurrect someone from the dead Secondly you didn't disprove the resurrection as a logical impossibility The mere fact that we don't see people rising from the dead Doesn't serve as conclusive evidence that it can't happen

[@Wedlockvideos]

@@kiroshakir7935 No, previously you did, and you haven’t shown that “ god” by definition is ANYTHING. What you’ve done is assert something without basis

[@Wedlockvideos]

If I tell you that my rabbit foot has omnipotent powers , or by definition is such, that would be asserting something

[@Wedlockvideos]

@quakerman7: Why attack personally? A miracle is the ABSOLUTE LAST thing a thinking person would resort to for an explanation. If you examined your life you know you live that way too. You live in a naturalistic universe and you demonstrate that everyday. You only reserve a "special pleading" for miracles as an apologist. History has no access to miracles.

[@JeffSchroeder-w6o]

I think you overlook the miracle of life itself. It is an unbelievable MIRACLE that we exist and can discuss this. Look at the size of our universe and we to this point in human history are the only intelligible life in the universe. We also have self awareness or consciousness which to this day scientists cannot explain why or exactly what it is. We are surrounded by miracles each and every day.

[@greglogan7706]

It is evident that Craig misunderstood what Bart meant by marginalized Yet that was simple concept to understand in the first place - his painful misunderstanding begins to indicate to me that maybe not Bill is not very bright - he just has a lot of smart sounding shtick.

[@DeJay14]

@xchampx the only objection i hear is that the diciples read through those and made up christs fulfillment's of them i dont believe that of course

[@fellowservant34]

This was a shellacking! Dr. Craig is on point! Thanks for sharing!

[@greglogan7706]

Self deceived

[@Lacocacolaman]

Is this really Bart Ehrman? or is it *Rafael Pull mask off* Deputy Barney Fife! I rest my case.

[@mmh5481]

Bart- straight to the point, facts, evidence WLC- word salad, miracles, fantasies

[@giska1000]

@SurvivalGear63 you should watch Wiliam Lane Craig on bart ehrman 6 parts...Bart Ehrman is i am convinced christian...but somehow he refuses to admit it and he claims he ,,left faith,, because of ,,problem of evil,,....i mean....how can you reject faith because of ,,rpoblem of evil,,??when that question is self destructing??...