- Feb 24, 2019
- 1,031
- 867
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
And that {Bart Ehrman) believes that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
Thanks for heads up Essential. I did not word that right. I was going on memory from two debates he had with Christian apologists to which I had read/listened. Here is what Dr. Ehrman actually said in his debate with William Lane Craig on the resurrection of Jesus.
"What about the resurrection of Jesus? I’m not saying it didn’t happen; but if it did happen, it would be a miracle. The resurrection claims are claims that not only that Jesus’ body came back alive; it came back alive never to die again. That’s a violation of what naturally happens, every day, time after time, millions of times a year. What are the chances of that happening? Well, it’d be a miracle. In other words, it’d be so highly improbable that we can’t account for it by natural means. A theologian may claim that it’s true, and to argue with the theologian we’d have to argue on theological grounds because there are no historical grounds to argue on. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical research, we can’t claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition, it probably didn’t. And history can only establish what probably did."
EssentialSaltes:That is not correct.
Thanks for heads up Essential. I did not word that right. I was going on memory from two debates he had with Christian apologists to which I had read/listened. Here is what Dr. Ehrman actually said in his debate with William Lane Craig on the resurrection of Jesus.
"What about the resurrection of Jesus? I’m not saying it didn’t happen; but if it did happen, it would be a miracle. The resurrection claims are claims that not only that Jesus’ body came back alive; it came back alive never to die again. That’s a violation of what naturally happens, every day, time after time, millions of times a year. What are the chances of that happening? Well, it’d be a miracle. In other words, it’d be so highly improbable that we can’t account for it by natural means. A theologian may claim that it’s true, and to argue with the theologian we’d have to argue on theological grounds because there are no historical grounds to argue on. Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature of the canons of historical research, we can’t claim historically that a miracle probably happened. By definition, it probably didn’t. And history can only establish what probably did."
Upvote
0