I watched a debate between Bart Ehrman and Bill Craig, in it Ehrman states that since Mary was at the crucifixion (according to John 19:25) he made this argument, that he said he didn't believe, but was more likely than a miracle, which is extremely unlikely:
Is there a debunking of this? I've looked everywhere and couldn't find anyone making an argument against it.
Other urls found in this thread:
catholic.org
twitter.com
Yes I have a debunking on hand
Luke 24
Can we debunk wild hypothesis with absolutely no supporting evidence just because it's theoretically possible?
I gotta be honest, that question still gives me good chills every time I read it.
The idea that miracles are unlikely is a metaphysical assumption backed by no evidence whatsoever. Miracles happen all the time, though Christ's resurrection is the greatest of them.
God's intervention in the world is a constant part of it, it isn't just something you appeal to when you can't explain an event by other means.
There is no point in debuking it. This piece of garbage is, itself, a debunking of atheism.
Beg your pardon? i didn't know 1st century jews had Sodium hydroxide and man sized pressure cookers lying around. It'll take a lot longer than three days to make a corpse unrecognizable without chemical assistance. especially in the exceptionally salty area that is Jerusalem and the Dead Sea.
This is an absolute Tigger-tier argument. It's like arguing for the historical assassination of Lincoln in a crowded theater and the opponent simply saying LOL GUNS AREN'T REAL. The entire point of a miracle is that it is a divinely-attributed abnormality within the state of nature. That's what makes it a damn miracle. He is arguing with the presupposition that miracles aren't real and creating a strawman of a miracle that does not match the definition of the word. It is insultingly dishonest. There is no point in arguing the resurrection of Jesus if you have no common language. The argument that should be had should be regarding the nature of miracles because his autism cannot accept the possibility that there is a God and it logically follows that if there is a God, that He would have full sovereignty over creation. This argument is like the (((scholars))) who date Matthew later than 70AD because their pea brains have a cult worship of materialism, so the fact that Jesus prophecied the fall of the temple just cannot be, therefore they need to defend their feminine little worldview by calling Jesus and the writers of the gospel liars.
Would ANY natural explanation be more rational than the resurrection of Jesus? Yes, absolutely - in a world where there is no God. But the argument here is that there IS a God and it therefore follows that Jesus' resurrection IS perfectly within the bounds of reason. The point that Ehrman should be making is that even if there was a God who would have the ability to create miracles, the circumstances regarding Jesus' resurrection are so implausible as opposed to X given the evidence that it is irrational to think that the resurrection, and therefore a miracle, actually happened. What he's doing is saying LOL MIRACLES AREN'T REAL SO IT'S STUPID AND LITERALLY ANYTHING ELSE IS MORE PLAUSIBLE. If he wasn't such a dishonest person and this actually were his honestly laid out argument, then the point should have been to prove that miracles are not real, he can't just state something like it's a fact.
This nu-atheist style of argumentation makes me angry at the absolute sheer stupidity and dishonesty, and it makes me feel sad for the world that people actually think it's smart.
[-]
God that debate was literally Ehrman repeating this over and over
So did anyone see actual resurrected Jesus?
As in bodily, not "apparition" or whatever.
He ate a piece of fish in front of the apostles to prove he was flesh and not an apparition.
Any proof the fish is real?
Any proof you're real? But
I'm feeling like goddamn Sherlock Holmes here but so did any of the apostles actually touch him?
Yes. You are desperately trying to grasp straws. How can you even write these retarded questions with a straight face?
Like Sherlock Holmes, there's always a rational explaination to seemingly supernatural element.
Wow I wonder how the homicides department isn't out of business today.
I wonder who's Saint Thomas. Do you actually know the story or something?
St. Thomas was the Jerusalem Sherlock Holmes and he had to put ins fingers inside Jesus wonds to believe. Which prompted Jesus to say: blessed those who believe without having seen.
As a fan of Sherlock Holmes he even admits that when there's no rational explanation the he would consider the supernatural.
A quick bible reading shows all these theories are wrong at lots of points and only would work if everyone in the world was stoned because a meteorite made of weed crashed on the earth.
Doesn't seem very Holmes to me.
catholic.org
There isnt always, just like there are not for many things. Where does that stupid statement come from? Your delusional mind?
It is no surprise that these fedoras have admitted that even if God himself appeared to them, they would claim it was aliens. There are no limits to the wishful thinking of atheists. They admit they will not let materialism go, and still expect people to take them seriously.
One proof would be we have a written account of what happened to the contrary, which mayhaps is not as plausible as Bart's nonsesne, but still has more evidence than anything else someone would consider plausible.
He'd then definitely would argue against the validity of the written account, but screw him.
lmao so true
How could I debunk that within the bounds of what he calls proof anymore than Ehrman could debunk me if I went double ultra skeptic and said that the empty tomb didn't happen at all?
Oh I suppose I could demand proof that these hyper efficient burial plots existed, seems like something you could acquire experimental evidence for.
And never mind the Roman guards placed at the designated tomb, who would have been crucified for failing to do their job. Imagine having to explain that “uh well they never showed up”, I’m sure that would have gone over well.
Is Ehrman just completely historically ignorant?
Three days for a corpse to decompose beyond recognition? I'll need a citation on that one. Also
< Be Roman soldier
< Assigned to guard a tomb so no one steals the body and claims He resurrected
< A band of brigands show up to steal the body, kill them all as ordered and throw them in a ditch
< Also throw the very corpse you were ordered to guard in there as well for apparently no reason
< Get crucified yourself because you had one job, to make sure the corpse stays in the tomb
Yeah, I don't think Roman solders were that retarded.
I doesn't explain the risen bodily appearances and isn't in explaining the nature of the stolen body or the origin of Christianity. I think Ehrman has his logic backwards here. People believed in the re-appearance of Jesus because the empty tomb pointed in its favor.
Ehrman is arguing that people believed that because the tomb was empty, Jesus must have there risen
which goes against the vast majority of New Testament scholarship; in fact, I don't know of anyone who argues this.
Bodily resurrection was not something that Jews believed would happen in the middle of time to one person; they believed that it would happen to many people at the end of time. To say that people were anticipating or expecting Jesus to rise from the dead, and could therefore use the empty tomb of evidence of this, is false. The resurrection was only believed after it happened. If Peter knew that Jesus was going to come back after He died, he wouldn't have acted the way he did. The resurrection was not understood or expected. The return of Jesus after His crucifixion was not something that was on-the-look-out for, and no one would have said
All scriptural and scholarly evidence points in the opposite direction.
People did rob graves, but it was typically only for the valuable cloths and oils and herbs that were on the body during its embalming. It is incredibly strange that people would steal the rather unmarketable body, leave behind neatly fold up the valuable and expensive sheets in which the body was wrapped, and carry the oily and herbaceous naked body through the streets. If they loved someone enough to steal their body to re-bury, they would have loved them enough to preserve their dignity and not carry their body out of the tomb naked. What Ehrman arguing here is simply not reasonable.
Let's hypothetically accept that they were killed by the Roman guards while they took the body and were thrown into a communal burial plot. Okay. If it were communal, then the Romans and many people would know where it was. If there were any doubt about concerning the location of Jesus' body - if Joseph of Aramithea's tomb was empty, then people would look elsewhere. If his tomb had a rolled-away stone and the body was gone, the logical conclusion is that the body had been removed. Where then would they look for the body? The communal pit and other burial sites.
If such an uproar was caused about Jesus and His re-appearance, in efforts to keep peace and order, the Romans would have simply said that the body had been moved to X location.
Bart Ehrman's argument is riddled with holes. What we must accept, as unlikely as it may be, is that the official Christian explanation of what happened is the most complete and solid explanation of what happened to Jesus' body and why people saw Him after He died.
It*
Typos, etc, might be more in there somewhere…
It doesn't explain the risen bodily appearances or the origin of such a belief. I think Ehrman has his logic backwards here. People believed in the re-appearance of Jesus because the empty tomb pointed in its favor, not the other way around.
According to Matthew 28, the first people to go visit Jesus at the tomb were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph (identified by Papias as the aunt of Jesus).
According to Mark 16, it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
According to Luke 23-24, it was "the women who had come with Him from Galilee . . . and certain other women with them".
According to John 20, it was Mary Magdalene.
The theory that Jesus's relatives were angry that Joseph of Arimathea was the one to bury him is not too crazy in itself. After all, Jesus's relatives didn't seem to be too close to Jesus's new community of disciples, and to be disparaging of His ministry, per Matthew 12:46-50, Matthew 13:53-58, Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:1-6, and Luke 8:19-21. However, John 2:1-12 and Acts 1:12-14 remember them in a different light - it is shown that Jesus's relatives were in fact among His disciples too.
Regardless of which memory is correct (assuming they contradict each other at all to begin with), it still remains that Jesus's mother and aunt were most certainly among His disciples at least. If Bart Ehrman's hypothesis is correct, surely they would have noticed that several of their relatives have gone missing right after Jesus's burial, coinciding with His disappearance from the tomb.