DEBATE: Did Jesus REALLY rise from the dead??
by Terry 26 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
leavingwt
IF he did rise from the dead, then I need to accept him into my heart (again).
-
Terry
An intelligent debate is a rare thing to watch.
I think we are all in for a treat that YouTube preserves these.
Anybody watching the above debate will undoubtedly have opinions.
I'd like you to share your opinions here.
-
tec
I really enjoyed this debate. Both parties presented well, but there must be other parts of this debate that came before? I missed the explanation of these four criteria things that historians use, as presented by Licona.
Usually I hear most of what the skeptics and critics have to say, without necessarily hearing what believers have to say in rebuttal. Faith is personal, so I need to be able to stand up under it on my own accord. And I often disagree with some of the rebuttals being used in a debate. (like the laptop example that shows an intelligent designer; therefore a creator exists. I... strongly dislike... that comparison as a reason for a creator.)
But for the most part, I enjoyed Licona's rebuttal. (Though he seems to have gotten caught on the Jesus appearing to Judas. I wish he had gotten a chance to respond to that, or at least to admit that he misspoke.)
Also, Ehrman seemed to be great at offering many alternative possibilities, but none that seemed plausible when all the evidence is taken as a whole. (This is the problem I have, which seems to crop up on the atheist side of any debate) Such as the appearance of Jesus. If it was a vision/hallucination, then the grief reason does not work with Paul. He admitted this, and said it is a bigger topic to discuss, but in the essence of this debate, it throws a monkeywrench into this reason that he presented.
Also, the twin thing seems silly to me - and I'll go as far as to say a relative that looked very similar to Jesus, since no mention of a twin is ever mentioned in the bible and in fact would be in contradiction to everything taught about Jesus' birth. (Yes, Ehrman also admitted the implausibility of it) But it stands to reason, (to me at least) that if the Jews didn't want the rumor of Christ having risen from the dead to have any importance, then they would have researched and known that he had a twin (or similar appearing relative), and they would have ousted him to the people.
I do like to see two intelligent people go head to head in a rational and courteous manner.
So nice post, Terry,
Tammy
-
PSacramento
Many people in the first century were so convinced that they were will to die for their belief.
The suffered hardships, were persecuted, they did not have anythign to gain, but they BELIEVED that Jesus ressurected.
This is one of those issues that truly is an issue of "faith".
-
Terry
Many people in the first century were so convinced that they were will to die for their belief.
The suffered hardships, were persecuted, they did not have anythign to gain, but they BELIEVED that Jesus ressurected.
This is one of those issues that truly is an issue of "faith".
In our own day we have the same thing with True Believers willing to strap dynamite to their chest and walk into a public place to blow
up unbelievers for their FAITH.
We call those people Fanatics and Monsters.
In the case of Early Christians....let us be more generous. Let us call them gullible and naive.
-
Terry
Also, Ehrman seemed to be great at offering many alternative possibilities, but none that seemed plausible when all the evidence is taken as a whole. (This is the problem I have, which seems to crop up on the atheist side of any debate) Such as the appearance of Jesus. If it was a vision/hallucination, then the grief reason does not work with Paul. He admitted this, and said it is a bigger topic to discuss, but in the essence of this debate, it throws a monkeywrench into this reason that he presented.
Paul seems to know nothing at all about Jesus personally or his life or ministry or the interactions with historical people. He just has a blinding
vision and a mission to spread an evangelical Gentile version of Judiasm without the law.
The "vision" of the Transfiguration included Moses and Elijah but nobody is willing to say that vision was REAL people (merely the brain reacting to internal stimulus.) i.e. hallucination.
Ehrman is saying a vision can be anything up to and including a NOT REAL incidence.
This was in the effort to make the point that we cannot rely on historical information about Jesus resurrection. We MUST rely on Theological sources.
Remember, that the person making an assertion of the existence of something extraordinary is the one with the burden of proof to present extraordinary evidence. It is not the person rebutting.
Here is a sort of Reader's Digest version of the Main Points:
-
PSacramento
It is true that in this day and age we have seen the prime example of religous fanatacisim and brain washing, to the extreme.
It is truly a sad display and oen that pains all of us, believers and non-believers alike.
That said, it doesn't change that they believed and not just believed and killed ( any fool can do that) but believed and died WITHOUT killing anyone or taking anyone along for "the ride".
So, lets us give those "naive and guillable" people at least enough condideration as to NOT group them with fanatical murdereres.
That said, we have seen, as in the case of Jonestown, the problem with people willing to die for what they believe.
-
Terry
Lee STrobel is one of the leading Apologists for traditional views on biblical accuracy.
It is very very interesting how he dishonestly frames the so-called "rebuttal" to Bart Ehrman.
He tries to pretend that the existence of 1,000's of discrepant manuscripts is a "GOOD THING".
Why?
Because this means the New Testament is WELL ATTESTED! (There are lots of manuscripts).
Think about that argument.
What does it matter how MANY error-ridden manuscripts there are in determining what the Originals said??
Those five thousand+ copies were copying the CHANGED and CORRUPTED earlier copies! Not the originals (which are lost.)
This is a spurious argument.
He tries to make it sound like WE HAVE MORE NEW TESTAMENT manuscripts than we have ANY OTHER historical manuscript.........and therefore.........the sheer number must mean (somehow) they are more reliable!
The ILIAD by Homer has a few hundred manuscripts and the New Testament has 5,700 manuscripts therefore THE BIBLE must be truer than the Iliad??
The Iliad doesn't pretend to be God's words, does it?
Strobel then goes on to concentrate on detailing the variances WHICH ARE TOO INSIGNIFICANT TO MATTER so that he can laugh ALL other variances off with equal dismissal!
Then, the worst thing Stroble does is misrepresent the opinion of EVANGELICAL scholars AS THOUGH it were THE ENTIRE scholar community in concluding "no central tenet of Christian Faith is in jeopard because of text variances." Of course fundamentalists will believe this!
Strobel quotes Evangelical Bible Schoalr Daniel Wallace who has asserted:
"First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life."
WALLACE doesn't agree with Bart Ehrman!! Shock!
-
PSacramento
Here's the thing Terry, either we use the same criteria to judge all historical books or we don't.
Now, I agree that for something as important as God's word that "historical proof" may not be enough for all, I think that applies to those that think the bible infalliabl and innerrant.
Those of us that dont view it that way are ok with viewing it within thr historical context as Bruce Metzger said:
"..over 90% of the NT is rather well established in regard to its original text, and none of the remaining 10% provides us with data that could lead to any shocking revisions of the Christian credo or doctrine."
But I wil say this and I agree with Terry on this, those that base their religiona dn faith on the inerrant and infalliable bible, need to understand what that means.