Bart Ehrman on the Lack of Historical Evidence for the Resurrection

[Rose]

Dr. Bart Ehrman discusses the lack of historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, amongst other things. During the video Dr. Ehrman brings up important questions about the many contradictions in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection and appearances of Jesus.

If the accounts in the Gospels differ, which ones are people to believe?

When Paul had a vision of Jesus how did he know it was Jesus he was seeing?

Just because a person has a vision of someone it doesn't mean that person was resurrected ... visions are not uncommon amongst people who have lost loved ones.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twX5HlBDZEI

[malachigreenidge]

You guys just don't get it, and you don't want to. You can talk around it, and argue about the evidence all day, and all night, and all of your lives if you want, but the fact is: HE IS GOD! There is a Kingdom Coming, and soon coming, why do you not want to be a part of it??? You bear witness to His existence yourselves, that you spend so much time trying to debunk Him. Are you on other sites trying to disuade people from believing in mohammed, or buddha, or confucious...probably not. So why are you so fixed on this "Jesus" if He's so insignificant? Are those other gods swear words? I don't think so, not like my Jesus! People curse Him openly, worldwide on a daily basis. Even those who don't believe in Him say His Name more times a day than many who would call themselves Christians do. Think about it...His Name has been uttered more than ANY other name given in History. Thats a fact. Nobody's name is greater. You count next time you go see a hollywood movie, how many times you hear His Name, and yet none of these people believe in Him??? He has His own timeline. That's not just a little thing now is it. Nope. How would you become a timeline, if one actually sought to do just that sort of thing? You can come up with all the arguments you want. At the end of the day, He's still God. And at the end of the day, you're gonna have to deal with it, just like the rest of us.
Sin had to be dealt with Rose, thats why all the atrocities. God does not WANT to war with mankind, He created them. It is mankind that goes to war against God. So God says fine, this is stupid, but if thats what you want, here you go, look what happens. He's teaching us. All throughout history He has been teaching us. We are His children. It was part of His plan to have a children unto Himself. And for whatever reason that I cannot explain to you, it seems that the only way God could have a people (children) unto himself was by way of free will. Because with free will, you automatically open up the potential for sin, to go against Him who gave you the freedom to choose. The angels in Bible stories had free will too, and obviously some exercised thier right to choose foolishly. God didn't want sin, but yes He knew it was going to happen. Does that make God evil, or the creator of evil because He essentially created free will?? I say no. But that is because I see Him in a different light than you. Its not that neither of us sees Him, as you claim. The fact is, we both see Him. Why would you be here on this site otherwise? You are here to talk about Him. Why you guys are here spending so much of your time talking about a Man that you essentially don't believe in, and constantly disagree with, is quite baffling to me(?). He holds such significance in your lives, and you don't want to admit it. Its almost humorous the irony of it all. Sometimes I chuckle in awe.
That is really the question at the root of your offence with Jesus though, isn't it. Do you see Him as a God who entices his creation to sin, and then spews judgement out on them? I believe you are of that persuasion. But when you know and believe the whole story, you can see nothing but a Loving God. A God who took responsibility for His creation. A God who KNOWING that His creation would turn against Him, didn't allow Adam and Eve to taste death at the hands of the tempter. No, He stepped in and slayed an animal, as a sacrifice to cover the sin of man and woman. Sin required death, that was the covenant. It was fully understood. And although death entered the world through Adam, God would later sacrifice Himself, in the person of Jesus, Son of God, to be a propitiation for the sins of all mankind, for all eternity. It was all planned. No surprises here.
Sin plagues the earth, we are all witness to that. But there is a Kingdom that is coming, that any of us can be a part of, that has been rid of sin. God's intentional Kingdom before Adam forfeited it over to satan. His plan was always to take away the sins of the world. If He wanted children unto Himself, that would love Him for who He was, then this was apparently the best plan He came up with. And Im glad He did, cause I haven't seen a better one yet! A plan that tells of a world that was once perfect, where EVERYTHING lived in harmony. The story is fantastic!But you guys don't see the end either, because again, you don't want to. He comes down from the sky on CLOUDS, haha, on a horse even!! Lands right down on Jerusalem (oh, but you don't believe that's God's earthly throne. Its only the most hostile and sought after piece of land on earth. EVER. Your explanation for that aside from the biblical???) Draws ALL people to Himself, defeats the anti-christ and all the worlds evils, and sets up an ACTUAL World Wide Kingdom where people live in ACTUAL peace and harmony! Is there a better story than that??
You want to believe in evolution you go right ahead. Thats a horrible and stupid story, with no beginning and no ending, no Saviour, no hope, no love, just death and endings. You guys can rummage up all the evidence you want for your poopy party, but I'm jumpin' on the Jesus train! I'm Kingdom bound!! You gotta know the end of the story. The Glory. the unity of Mankind with their God. Thats the part you guys don't even look at. The end of time when we are raised from death to life, and life everafter!!! You got a better ending than that?
And the one thing that all of us "believers" have an advantage in is spiritual hind sight. See, because when you meet Jesus, you realize that you actually ALWAYS knew it was Him, and that you were just denying it.
Just admit you're a sinner. We all are. And then accept God's forgiveness. His love has been extended to all of us. Jesus bore witness of this. The only difference between you and I is that I have accepted His forgiveness. We don't go to heaven and hell because we're either good or bad. That is not what the Bible teaches. It is all about accepting God's forgiveness through the Person of Jesus. Heaven and hell are both gonna be full of sinners. Heaven the forgiven ones, hell the unforgiven. Because they chose not to be. Forgiven.

[Timmy]

Now this is what I'm talking about...
AMEN
AMEN
AMEN
...and i'm not gonna stop!




Þ.Œ:sBo_reflection2:

[David M]

Apart from two sticking points, which I have and those are; 1. God's Angels do not sin 2. Jesus is not God, I concur and say; "Amen" to the remainder of what malachigreenidge has written.

Let's see if we can answer Rose's questions:

Q1. If the accounts in the Gospels differ, which ones are people to believe?
We are to believe all the Gopels. They do not differ in truth, only that each gospel is written from a different perspective with a particular audience in mind. Each gospel tells of a different aspect of Jesus's life. The message is coherent and consistent and man-made errors introduced into the text can be spotted and eliminated.

Q2. When Paul had at vision of Jesus how did he know it was Jesus he was seeing?
First of all, Saul (Paul) did not "see" Jesus physically; he only heard the voice of Jesus and he saw a "blinding light", which was personal to him. There is no record of him seeing anything but a blinding light. The encounter was not totally private. Those with Saul heard the voice, but saw no man. Saul was asked a question of which Saul knew the answer already. Even so, Saul recognized that he was in the presence of someone much more powerful than him and thus he attributes authority to him by calling him "Lord". Those, who were standing by and hearing the voice, were also witnesses that Jesus identified himself by name. Paul's encounter with Jesus did not involve him alone; only the message was directed at Saul by way of a conversation with Jesus.

(Rose) Just because a person has a vision of someone it doesn't mean that person was resurrected ... visions are not uncommon amongst people who have lost loved ones.
Jesus was not a "loved one" in the eyes of Saul. He was persecuting the followers of Jesus, thinking Jesus was an imposter and was not the Messiah. Saul was steeped in the ancient scriptures and like the Jewish religious leaders at the time, did not recognize Jesus as 'The Prophet' spoken about by Moses. Jesus knew that Saul knew the scriptures very well and knew all the words of Moses and the prophets speaking of Jesus. Saul was kicking against what was promised in the scriptures, and so Jesus said; "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" His encounter with Jesus was the one pricks Saul could not kick against; this was his turning point. The zeal that Paul had was now directed towards preaching Christ crucified and raised from the dead. Paul was a changed man in outlook, just as the disciples of Jesus, who all forsook him in his last mortal hours, were transformed in their outlook and courage to profess their risen Lord. They were all prepared to die in the knowledge that Jesus was risen from the dead. Death was not going to be permanent for those who have faith in God to keep his promise.

To deny written testimonials, which by copying and translation, have been handed down to us for our learning, is to deny facts as they have been recorded. This is the "evidence unseen" by us living today, who are not eye-witnesses to the events which took place. That "unseen evidence" is what gives us faith in the promises of God which are waiting their fulfilment and gives us hope in the resurrection to come.

Paul was convinced of two things;
1. (1 Cor 2:2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
2. (Rom 8:38) For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


David

[Rose]

You guys just don't get it, and you don't want to. You can talk around it, and argue about the evidence all day, and all night, and all of your lives if you want, but the fact is: HE IS GOD! There is a Kingdom Coming, and soon coming, why do you not want to be a part of it??? You bear witness to His existence yourselves, that you spend so much time trying to debunk Him. Are you on other sites trying to disuade people from believing in mohammed, or buddha, or confucious...probably not.

Hello Malachi

The real problem is people like you who go around declaring that god is a fact, when in reality the Bible was written by primitive men who created it's deity from the imaginings of their own minds. The gods of all the other religions are just as false, but I am most familiar with the Christian religion and it's god, so that is where I choose to spend my time and effort.


Sin had to be dealt with Rose, thats why all the atrocities. God does not WANT to war with mankind, He created them. It is mankind that goes to war against God. So God says fine, this is stupid, but if thats what you want, here you go, look what happens. He's teaching us. All throughout history He has been teaching us. We are His children. It was part of His plan to have a children unto Himself. And for whatever reason that I cannot explain to you, it seems that the only way God could have a people (children) unto himself was by way of free will. Because with free will, you automatically open up the potential for sin, to go against Him who gave you the freedom to choose.

People do bad things, but there is no such thing as sin. Sin is a concept made up by men who want to control the lives of others. Don't you think if there really was a creator god he could have made his creation any way he wished, like ... without the capacity to do evil?


That is really the question at the root of your offence with Jesus though, isn't it. Do you see Him as a God who entices his creation to sin, and then spews judgement out on them? I believe you are of that persuasion. But when you know and believe the whole story, you can see nothing but a Loving God. A God who took responsibility for His creation. A God who KNOWING that His creation would turn against Him, didn't allow Adam and Eve to taste death at the hands of the tempter. No, He stepped in and slayed an animal, as a sacrifice to cover the sin of man and woman. Sin required death, that was the covenant. It was fully understood. And although death entered the world through Adam, God would later sacrifice Himself, in the person of Jesus, Son of God, to be a propitiation for the sins of all mankind, for all eternity. It was all planned. No surprises here.

The way god is portrayed in the Bible is the height of irresponsibility! What parent would entice their innocent, and naive children, by putting sumptuous food in front of them that is poisonous? In reality only primitive childlike minds could come up with a story like that of Adam and Eve in the Garden ... it is so fraught with problems it is only fit for a fairy tale.



You want to believe in evolution you go right ahead. Thats a horrible and stupid story, with no beginning and no ending, no Saviour, no hope, no love, just death and endings. You guys can rummage up all the evidence you want for your poopy party, but I'm jumpin' on the Jesus train! I'm Kingdom bound!! You gotta know the end of the story. The Glory. the unity of Mankind with their God. Thats the part you guys don't even look at. The end of time when we are raised from death to life, and life everafter!!! You got a better ending than that?


First off evolution is not a story, it's reality ... unlike the biblical narrative. Secondly, stories don't get any more horrible than whats presented to us in the Bible. The biblical god's solution to every problem, is to slaughter and torture his creation for the very sins he created them to commit! How crazy is that?

Talk about bad endings ... it doesn't get any worse then what we read about happening to the inhabitants of the earth in Revelation!

Take care
Rose

[Rose]

Apart from two sticking points, which I have and those are; 1. God's Angels do not sin 2. Jesus is not God, I concur and say; "Amen" to the remainder of what malachigreenidge has written.

Hello David

Those two points that you disagree with Malachi on are HUGE! It is no trivial matter to dismiss Jesus as being god, or to say that god's angels do not sin ...


Let's see if we can answer Rose's questions:

Q1. If the accounts in the Gospels differ, which ones are people to believe?
We are to believe all the Gopels. They do not differ in truth, only that each gospel is written from a different perspective with a particular audience in mind. Each gospel tells of a different aspect of Jesus's life. The message is coherent and consistent and man-made errors introduced into the text can be spotted and eliminated.

They most certainly do differ in truth! Take for instance the Gospel account of the day of crucifixion ... in John's account Jesus is crucified on a different day than in the other Gospels. So, which is it? It can't be both. Or take perhaps when the stone was rolled away from the tomb, did it happen before the women arrived, or did it happen at the time Martha arrived at the tomb? It can't be both. One account is wrong! The Bible is full of such contradictions and errors.


Q2. When Paul had at vision of Jesus how did he know it was Jesus he was seeing?
First of all, Saul (Paul) did not "see" Jesus physically; he only heard the voice of Jesus and he saw a "blinding light", which was personal to him. There is no record of him seeing anything but a blinding light. The encounter was not totally private. Those with Saul heard the voice, but saw no man. Saul was asked a question of which Saul knew the answer already. Even so, Saul recognized that he was in the presence of someone much more powerful than him and thus he attributes authority to him by calling him "Lord". Those, who were standing by and hearing the voice, were also witnesses that Jesus identified himself by name. Paul's encounter with Jesus did not involve him alone; only the message was directed at Saul by way of a conversation with Jesus.

Once again, the only account given is from word of mouth with no evidence to back it up. Also, the account in Acts 9:7 says that the other men heard a voice, whereas the account in 22:9 says that the other men did not hear the voice that spoke to Paul. It can't be both hearing and not hearing.


Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me



(Rose) Just because a person has a vision of someone it doesn't mean that person was resurrected ... visions are not uncommon amongst people who have lost loved ones.
Jesus was not a "loved one" in the eyes of Saul. He was persecuting the followers of Jesus, thinking Jesus was an imposter and was not the Messiah. Saul was steeped in the ancient scriptures and like the Jewish religious leaders at the time, did not recognize Jesus as 'The Prophet' spoken about by Moses. Jesus knew that Saul knew the scriptures very well and knew all the words of Moses and the prophets speaking of Jesus. Saul was kicking against what was promised in the scriptures, and so Jesus said; "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" His encounter with Jesus was the one pricks Saul could not kick against; this was his turning point. The zeal that Paul had was now directed towards preaching Christ crucified and raised from the dead. Paul was a changed man in outlook, just as the disciples of Jesus, who all forsook him in his last mortal hours, were transformed in their outlook and courage to profess their risen Lord. They were all prepared to die in the knowledge that Jesus was risen from the dead. Death was not going to be permanent for those who have faith in God to keep his promise.

The point is that seeing an apparition does not equal a resurrection, and Paul makes a claim about the validity of the resurrection because Jesus was seen by the disciples, which exposes yet another error of Scripture. In 1Cor.15:5 Paul states that Jesus was seen of the twelve disciples ... well, there were not twelve disciples at that time, because Judas Iscariot had taken his own life and Matthias had not been chosen as a replacement yet.


1Cor.15:4-5 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:



To deny written testimonials, which by copying and translation, have been handed down to us for our learning, is to deny facts as they have been recorded. This is the "evidence unseen" by us living today, who are not eye-witnesses to the events which took place. That "unseen evidence" is what gives us faith in the promises of God which are waiting their fulfilment and gives us hope in the resurrection to come.

Paul was convinced of two things;
1. (1 Cor 2:2) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
2. (Rom 8:38) For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.


David

One should never believe a written testimonial on face value without any evidence to back it up. Do you believe the Koran? If not, why not?

Unseen evidence is no evidence at all!

Take care,
Rose

[Rose]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0GF6YIk-2s


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_EHDMVLXGw