Regarding Bart Ehrman and the Bible

In the topic, *The Gospel According To Oprah Winfrey: Jesus Did Not Come To Die On The Cross*
Lt_Ripley posted the following link
http://www.dangerousintersection.org/?p=668
to an article about the book:
Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers
-=-=-


The following URL has a 37-page transcript of the debate:
Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?
A Debate between William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/...-transcript.pdf


March 28, 2006
Copyright 2006 William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman. All Rights Reserved.

Professor Victor Matheson will time the speakers by holding up cards.
Each speaker will make a 20 minute opening statement
Each speaker gets 12 minutes for a first rebuttal.
Each speaker gets an 8 minute second rebuttal.
Each speaker draws a conclusion in 5 minutes.

... questions of each speaker, for a total of 30 minutes.

Dr. Anderton will make a final statement.

... and then go to our homes peacefully, burning nothing on the way.

The two speakers do not know one another except by name and reputation. They have not practiced with one another. This is a serious argument; it is not a meeting of the World Wrestling Federation. They are debating a serious question, namely, just what kind of literature are the New Testament books and to what uses can they be put? They are both well established scholars, authors and speakers.

William Lane Craig has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham and a doctorate in theology from the University of Munich. He studied at the Catholic University of Louvain for seven years. He has been research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology for the past ten years. He has written and edited over thirty books, including one titled Assessing the NT Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, and two volumes of previous debates, one with Gerd Lüdemann of Göttingen University in Germany and one with John Dominic Crossan of DePaul University.

Bart Ehrman is James Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina. He received his doctorate from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1985, and he has been at North Carolina since 1988. He has written 19 books, of which my favorites are his
introductions to the New Testament and early Christian Literature, and his recent book on the DaVinci Code.

Dr. Craig will make the first statement, followed by Dr. Ehrman.
-=-=-=-=--

The commentary on Ehrman's book is informative, and the the debate: Ehrman v Craig is not only interesting; it is very informative, both from the point of a Christian and that of a non-Christian.

My suggestion is:
Would those people who read through the debate (37 pages) please comment:
* who -- in your opinion -- made the most convincing arguments?
* and did the information from this debate change any of your previous opinions concerning the validity of the Bible?

Looking forward to comments,
Karlis

It's a tie. Both guys were good. I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I also understand the view of those who are skeptical. It's a matter of faith, it's difficult to prove.

I found this debate to be as most of the debates on UM between the theists and NB"S.. the bottom line is a thesit has a vested interest in the outcome and for as savvy as Dr.Craig this is apparent fairly early in the argument....

You know Dr. Erhman said it well you have to take it on faith that the ressurection and thats fine if you are a theist.( understandable and absurd if you don't what would be the point of faith or chrsitianity) but if you are wanting proof history just can't give it/support it ....

I felt Dr.Erhman had good reason to justify his claim, i didnt' fail to notice that in some ways i felt he could see a bigger picture than Dr.Craig, i felt since he was once deeply passionate about god and the like and then challenged himself to research it with the willngness to go with what he found, that is incredibible in my book....He showed a strong abilty to think for himself and an ability to set aside any vested personal interest...

I could relate, this road is not for the shrinking violet and you won't be status quo anymore or liked or popular....yet none of that mattered to Erhman..Just wanted to know for sure....Very commendable move IMO .

IMO DR. Erhman had the convincing argument hands down......

I could almost verbatum anticipate what Dr. Craig would counter with next..

great thread.. to bad it isn't more active....

of the two I believe Dr.Erhman won the debate. again faith is not proof. belief is not proof. The fact historians are silent during the time says volumes.

One thing I always felt was strange , is that no one recognized Jesus. When they first see him after he supposedly risen none recognized him. Odd.

He was in a glorified body which is why they did not recognize Him. It was why He was also able to walk through solid material which He did to enter a room that was locked.



Thomas, aka Doubting Thomas, was not there the first time and said he would not believe without being able to see the wounds of crucifixion, and then Jesus returned a second time also passing through solid material to enter a locked room.

Hi Supra Sheri ~~ do you think Dr. Ehrman has less of a vested interest in this debate than Dr Craig?
At what point in the debate did Dr. Craig's vested interest become apparent?

Do you think Dr. Ehrman changing his beliefs makes him more credible?

In evaluating the debate, could you enumerate the points that scored so convincingly in favour of Dr. Ehrman?

Actually, I did not expect too many people to respond, because it takes more than an hour to read through the 37-page debate; on top of that, more time is needed to evaluate the pros and cons of both speakers ... very time consuming.

Hi Lt_Ripley ~~ could you enumerate the points on which Dr. Ehrman out-scored Dr. Craig?
How convincingly did Dr. Craig argue for the resurrection?

Why odd? Keep in mind that Jesus always had super-natural powers; and on more than one occasion he caused people "not to recognise him", even as they were in the act of seizing him, to kill him.

For those who read the transcript of the debate:
What are your opinions (pro or con) regarding Dr. Craig's use of the formula for calculating probabilities?

To fully appreciate Dr. Craig's argument, you would have to read through that aspect in the transcript, starting on page five; but I will copy-paste part of that below:
~~~~~~~~~~

[Copied from the transcript ...]
Dr. Ehrman maintains that we can never say that a miracle like the resurrection probably occurred because miracles by their very nature are inherently improbable. Now despite what he said, this argument is nothing new. It was already propounded in the 18th century by David Hume in his essay “Of Miracles.” Dr. Ehrman’s argument is just a warmed-over version of Hume’s reasoning. Now what do contemporary philosophers think of Hume’s argument against the identification of miracles? Well, let me introduce you to another Earman, John Earman, Professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh.

[Powerpoint slide shows the cover of John Earman’s book, Hume’s Abject Failure: The
Argument Against Miracles.]

This Professor Earman is not a Christian; in fact, he’s an agnostic. He doesn’t even believe God exists. Nevertheless, you see what he thinks of Hume’s argument: it’s not merely a failure, it is an abject failure. That is to say, it is demonstrably, irremediably, hopelessly fallacious.

Let me explain why.
When we talk about the probability of some event or hypothesis A, that probability is always relative to a body of background information B. So we speak of the probability of A on B, or of A with respect to B.

[Powerpoint slide shows formula Pr (A/B).]

So in order to figure out the probability of the resurrection, let B stand for our background knowledge of the world apart from any evidence for the resurrection. Let E stand for the specific evidence for Jesus’ resurrection: the empty tomb, the post-mortem appearances, and so on.

Finally, let R stand for Jesus’ resurrection. Now what we want to figure out is the probability of Jesus’ resurrection given our background knowledge of the world and the specific evidence in this case.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B = Background knowledge
E = Specific evidence (empty tomb, postmortem appearances, etc.)
R = Resurrection of Jesus

Pr (R/B & E) = ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Calculating the Probability of the Resurrection:

Now probability theorists have developed a very complex formula for calculating probabilities
like this, and I’m going to walk you through it one step at a time, … (snip) …



.............................................Pr (R/B) × Pr (E/B&R)
Pr (R/B&E)= _____________________________________________________________________
.......................Pr (R/B) × Pr (E/B&R) + Pr (not-R/B) × Pr (E/B& not-R)

Basically, Pr (not-R/B) × Pr (E/B& not-R) represent the intrinsic probability and explanatory
power of all the naturalistic alternatives to Jesus’ resurrection.

So the probability of Jesus’ resurrection relative to our background information and the specific
evidence is equal to this complicated ratio.

And now we’re ready to see precisely where Dr. Ehrman’s error lies. So in the grand tradition of
Hume’s Abject Failure, I give you: Ehrman’s Egregious Error. ... (snip) …

I will do no good at reading it since logic and argument is not my strong point at all so it would be Greek to me. I also feel that involving myself as a spectator in these type of debates can only be used to become a better debater myself which is something I do not care for. Let my knowledge and my views stand on their own for I do not wish to persuade anyone one way or another but would rather study in the subjects I love to my heart's content and share my views on them. History, the Bible, and the goddess are three of my favorite topics.

As far as the formula presented above lol that is totally awesome someone would devise such even if it was just to disprove one our Savior's blessed moment. Did I understand it correctly? And what was the outcome of the formula in layman's terms? Thank you for posting this snippet of the debate and showing us the formula.

+ nice questions you have asked Karlis especially to SS cannot wait to read her response

I think you may have slightly misunderstood the source of this formula, Clovis; this formula was not "invented to prove or disprove the resurrection". According to Dr. Craig, probability theorists have developed [this] very complex formula for calculating probabilities -- any probabilities, in any given circumstance. Dr. Craig simply applied that formula in his argument.

Dr. Craig's use of the formula indicates that the reality of the resurrection has a probability ratio of nearly two times that of a non-resurrection. As to how Dr. Craig arrived at this, scroll to page five the transcript; Dr. Craig "walks you through" the steps taken in the formula ... it's not a long read at all, and is well explained.

Was Dr. Craig's application of the formula valid in this debate? -- I think we need a qualified mathematician to answer that; seeing that there are such qualified people on this board, I hope one or two will step forward to give an unbiased explanation on this point.

Yes, Sheri knows debating skills and tactics, so it will be educational to read her opinion.

Hope others put forward their views,
Karlis

Oh, thanks for cluing me in on the formula then. Cannot wait to hear a mathematician chime in then as per its validity in their opinion.

Using an empty tomb to prove Jesus rose from the dead ??? the easiest and most simple is usually the answer ---- and there are a few that would qualify.

The family could have moved the body.

the disciples themselves could have removed the body to perpetuate their own movement. ( a sort of final trick of the show).

Jesus could very well have survived !

the fact that all of this is taken on faith from one book alone with no outside source .......... says volumes.

Karlis, thankyou for your interest in this..



I actaully told a good freind of mine a retired philosphy proffessor about this thread today, it is by far one of the better threads Um has had ..Kudos to you for starting it.....

i intend to address your questions either this evening after I get in from work or tommorrow am..


I feel the inclusion of a mathematical proof is clever , many theists believe that mathematics is a proof/ truth so it is often used to support an arguement.. but in essence it isn't evidence because mathematics is a beleif a way we define things....literally deopending on a cultures needs depends on the math is makes up to aid it.....Just a thought....

As E (Evidence) is 0 - so is the probability.

That seems a bit too arbitrary a conclusion, Tiggs -- at least in the opinion of the learned Dr. Craig.

By the way, what do you think of this "formula for calculating probabilities"?
Karlis

Holy Cross' website has been down recently. I read Google's cached html version, which is here:

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:VgH_T...-transcript.pdf

I would like to comment on the use of the probability equation.

It is respectable to represent the strength of beliefs as probabilities. That approach is often called Bayesianism, or subjective probability.

When belief-strengths are represented by probabilities, they remain beliefs, personal to the individual assessing the numerical values. Opinions acquire no "objective correctness" when represented by probabilities. The only sense in which a personal probability can be "correct" is that it faithfully represents the personal opinion of the individual whose beliefs are being discussed.

One of the purposes of representing beliefs by probabilities is that it allows discussion about how evidence might and "should" change opinion. The arcane formula used in the debate is correct.

The inutition behind the formula is less arcane. Assuming a "miracle" is something I would scarcely believe without evidence, then the evidence which makes the miracle something I strongly believe must be pretty much inexplicable unless the miracle occurred.

In other words, I would need to be surprised to see this evidence if the ordinary course of natural events occurred, compared to pretty much expecting to see it if the miracle occurred.

At which point, generalities fail, because everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion about how "surprising" evidence is under different hypotheses.

And these specific debaters?

Ehrman did comment on the probability of miracles (at page 12, and emphasis added)


Oops. No, it isn't "by definition."

The probability that is so small in Ehrman's definition of miracle is, as Craig says, the evidence-free "intrinsic" probability. In principle, sufficiently strong evidence can overcome any finite disadvantage in intrinsic probability, if Bayesian ideas about belief change are acccepted.

What Ehrman ought to have said is that the intrinsic probability is so small, that no actual body of historical evidence could really overcome such an initial disadvantage. Or, he might have conceded that some body of evidence could prevail, and then contrast the actual state of the evidence in this case with that all but unattainable ideal record.

This being a staged debate, Ehrman should pay for the misstep. Philosophical issues, however, are not resolved by an advocate's missteps. What Ehrman said can be substantially rehabilitated within the norms of Bayesianism, if Bayes it must be. Ehrman's error is harmless to the cogency of his position.

So, I take it that Dr. Craig's use of that probability formula was a proper valid argument in the debate. That I think is an important point to establish.

Thanks for this input, eight bits,
Karlis

This is so very true supra Sheri for it can be easily rebuked by using mathematics and probablity to explain the Non-existence of God!

I think that you could equally say R = E. The formula is completely subjective.

I could, using exactly the same steps, compose a similar formula for the possibility of calculating that God exists.

With zero evidence, you're always going to get a zero result.

But, what are your thought about this formula used by experts on probability evaluators? Is the maths valid?
Karlis

I'm unsure, I'm assuming it's some variant of Baye's Theorem but it's not in a form I've ever seen before. As to it's validity - have a peek at the various camps of probability interpretations:



In short, ehn. Eight Bit's post pretty much covers it.

So how did they sneak past the Roman guards that are said to have been guarding the tomb for fear of just this possibility.........

You mean the Roman Guards that are only mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew?

Matthew 27
62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate.
63 "Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, 'After three days I will rise again.'
64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first."

Briefly skipping past the fact that they were posted to guard the tomb A WHOLE DAY AFTER Jesus had been buried in there, all the other gospels have no mention of any guards, in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

^ And the family moving the body, or the disciples moving it to perpetuate the myth, or Jesus surviving are valid suggestions? These are Lt Ripley's counters (I haven't fully read the debate so I don't know if that was used in the debate itself though). The big difference - the Roman guards may only be referenced in one of the gospels, but the situations Ripley suggests are mentioned in none....... just a thought.

Yep ... a part of the debate it was.
Karlis

Thanks Karlis. So all these alternative suggestions were given by Dr Ehrman, none of which are based on textual evidence. Yet the moment I suggest one possibility that was based on the text, it's invalid because it was only mentioned in one of them. Strange, I would have thought "some" evidence would be better than "none", but it seems that the weight of skepticism disagrees. One day, someone will have to explain to me how that logic works, because right now (and admittedly it is 1am) it completely eludes me.

If you have four witnesses and only one says that something happened in contrast to the others - you disbelieve the majority and take the minority position?

Matthew's account post-crucifixion is clearly structured as a response to the later refutation by the Jews that the disciples must have taken the body:

Matthew 28:
11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened.
12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money,
13 telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.'
14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble."
15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

This is the very same Matthew that claimed at the time of the Crucifixion that:

Matthew 27:
51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.
52 The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.
53 They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

Earthquakes, Rocks Splitting in two, the dead walking the Earth. Compare and contrast to John, where absolutely none of this is mentioned.

Matthew is roughly as reliable a source as Pravda.

karlis i do feel that Dr. .Erhman is doing what any good philospher or historian does and that is not tell you what you should think but put up the data for you to think and decide for yourself..

this is not the course of theism at all..

The argument iis to gain agreement, it is in the agreement that the counter is refutted... In a faith based genre you just have to agree to take something on faith...

I do see a willingness to step back and willingness to change his mind in Erhman....it is apparent through his debate


Karlis i have taken many course in religion , the bible and history and from a historical academic persepctive Erhman knows his stuff ..He is highly regarded in his field....He is honest and fair throughout his debate and he is not really a debater, yet his argument was well done ( the whole thing) ....He also lets the reader come to his own conclusion and he allows room for the possibility that one may choose to 'beleive' in miracles, and that is fine..but a beleif and proof are not the same thing....

see the thing is no matter what this type of arguement is often effective, because it allows for you to make up your own mind.......



If i was him I would of addressed Dr. Craig on his use of ad hominem ( albeit is is okay in certain contexts) and explored the mathematical proof line alot more but I have a bit of a background in math
history....


Dr. Craig has had only one viewpiont which he has maintained throughout his life this hasn't lent to an openness IMO in his case , I also fetl i got more knowledge/data/insight from Erhman....

Oh, I understand the point. For the record, the other three accounts don't say that this DIDN'T happen. But that's a ciricular argument, so I'll ignore it for now and concede it to you.

But when Dr Ehrman brings up various other suggestions about whato could have happened, none of which are corroborated by the evidence, then it is..... more reliable????? Know what I'm trying to say.

It is a clever use of vacuity , theodicys are well thought out counters and the objective is you can't prove them ,they are built around this .... take the ID arguement .. .. the exploit ignorance for all its worth....theodicys are selling the religion we can't forget this.. Erhman mentions this also....

perhaps for calculating probability yet, probability of what 'miracles' well it hasn't been established it is sound to begin with, also 'god' has not been establsihed to be sound or valid either...

Erhman excepted the frame of this debate, obviously..In the context of this the debate which is informal it works, in a formal argument it wouldn't .. because validity is truth preserving.......

Then look at the Evidence.

I know I briefly skipped over it before, but the fact remains that even if you take Matthew's unlikely account of events - the tomb was unguarded for an entire day.

Or put it another way:

After performing his famous thought experiment, Schrodinger sadly puts a dead cat in a box. A day or so later, Schrodinger's friends ask people to guard the box to make sure that Schrodinger doesn't sneak back and remove the dead kitty as they're suspicious that he'll do it to prove his point about Quantum indetermination. Two days later, the box is opened and the kitty isn't there.

Some people would conclude that the Kitty miraculously disappeared from the box by Quantum means. Others would conclude that the kitty was removed from the box before the guards were placed.

Choose.

Treated like any other historical event in history, take primary documents if available to back an assertion that the event you postulate happened actually did in fact happen. If there is no primary evidence, you then look for secondary sources that back your assertion. If there are any, then it is difficult to say it actually happened based on the available evidence.

The evidence of the entire bible is hit or miss. Some things can be correlated with other documents either backing up what is mentioned or in some cases contradiction occurs. In other cases there is literally (as of now) NO evidence, and that tends to be the case in many of the bible's "historical" accounts, including the resurrection.

Belief as is mentioned earlier isn't proof. Taken just from a historical perspective, removing any emotional or religious influences, the resurrection has little or no evidence to support it. That there are people who believe it happened, sure, but there are people who believe they see many things that we have no scientific, historical or any other kind of proof for, and until there is proof, it falls into the realm of faith to keep people believing.

"truths' are starting points on which arguments are built, so we use different axioms which build different arguments and within the system they are functioning they become matters of fact.....

god in a faith based system is a matter of fact within this frame....becasue faith requires only that you agree...

In an empirical frame god is not a matter of fact because it can't be established as sound or valid...( we have no empircal access to god in other words...)

logical arguments are constructed on empirical foundations not on hear say or assumption....i hope this helps a bit...

Thanks for that summary of basic principles for proposing arguments, Sheri.
I wonder if you would like to put forward an objective evaluation of the soundness of arguments used by each side?

Thanks, if you choose to accept this mission,
Karlis

karlis i'd be honored, give me a few hours i have to go tothe gym right now keep myself gorgeous I will post sometime today or at the latest tommorow...

Just because the bible and the gospels written long after the supposed resurrection, says something doesn't make it true. or else those stories of the holy family going to France could be just as true. Or the fact that many first century christians thought Jesus died , not risen. must be true.

you would think if it were true the 3 other accounts would have mentioned the tomb was guarded . It would add legitimacy to their account.

The fact that makes the Resurrection true for believers is not because it is written down but because just as Christ died and was rose from the dead so are believers when then let their old ways die and are risen in a new life through the Spirit. Without the Spirit I am sure it would be hard to believe in the Resurrection.



Not sure how you claim it was fact that the early Christians did not believe in the Resurrection. Anyone can make up theories and write books about it but how much does the historical record lend itself to the belief that early Christians did not believe in the Resurrection? Sources?

The stone was not rolled away until AFTER though. Otherwise, the guards would have noticed it missing. It wasn't until the Sunday morning that the people found the tomb, and the stone had been rolled away - supposedly under the eyes of Roman guards. And yes, that is taking "Matthew's unlikely account of events".

The Schrodinger analogy might work if the cat had been placed in teh box and then put in a cave with a massive stone rolled over it, then suddenly the next day the stone had been rolled away, right under the eyes of those who were watching it.......

Why woudl it have mentioned the tomb? If I got four people to follow you around for a single day, and then write about what they saw you say and do, and then asked them to write a one-page narrative, would they all write the same things? Would they think you stopping and having a chat with the boss at work was an important event? Who knows? Now, extend this to a period of years, and write a book with limited pages (parchment is expensive, afterall) and then read the four accounts. In some ways they will be similar, and in other ways they will be different. And they will not all see certain aspects of events as important (or at least important enough to use up valuable parchment space).

I don't think there is any reason why these three other accounts would need to have the guarding of the tomb.

Roman?

Zero of the four accounts place Roman soldiers onsite. Matthew 27:65, Pilate's answer to the temple officials' request for a Roman guard, can be variously translated as you may have a guard, or you may have the assistance of a soldier in sealing the tomb, but not a guard detail, or it is your responsibility (as opposed to Roman authority's responsibility) to secure the tomb.

Matthew goes on to testify in 28:11-15 that after the tomb was empty, the guards reported to the temple authorities, and agreed to a story in which the guards confess to falling asleep on watch. Neither is plausible behavior for Roman soldiers. Temple guards might well get away with that.

Plausible or not for Roman soldiers, Matthew's black-letter testimony is that these guards lied for bribes, and were not much concerned about being disciplined for the dereliction of which their lie indicted them (the temple authorities being able to fix things with the governor). If that is so, then where is the mystery about how anybody with a few coins could have made off with the body, when such is the integrity and level of discipline of the only people who might have stopped an intrusion by force?

Hi folks -- it seems as if this thread has just about run its course, since over the last day or so nobody has addressed the main point of the OP, which was:

My suggestion is:
Would those people who read through the debate (37 pages) please comment:
* who -- in your opinion -- made the most convincing arguments?
* and did the information from this debate change any of your previous opinions concerning the validity of the Bible?

Sheri, you were thinking of evaluating the debate, so if you and others would care to tally up and post your scores, this thread could be closed I think.

I'm voting for Dr. Craig, by the way,
Karlis

Hi folks -- Would you please care to post your evaluation -- pros or cons -- as to who best presented their arguments?

I wonder why nobody has responded, so far?

Thanks,
Karlis

Karlis, could you please refrain from reposting the same question simply because no one responded. People will either answer or they won't answer. I can certainly understand your point of view, but their are better ways of getting your point across than simply "bumping" threads (particularly your own) to the top of the page. Thank you,

My apologies -- I did not intend to "renew, or bump my OP";
though now I do see that I have broken the UM rules.

When I posted this, I was simply hoping that people who had actually taken the trouble of reading the 37 pages of the debate would be interested in giving their opinions.

So, may I again ask anyone who has an evaluation to please post it, please?

Thanks to everyone who choses to respond ... and this is with no intent to "bump" my OP.
Karlis

There are many problems with Dr. Craigs argument as in 'beleivable' and will best work on a gorup that has no other thought systems to drawn on..... IMO....Technically its in sound form but few argue formally and a theodicy is a counter or a defense to a posit that is in stasis....it is written with a vested interest and for a particular group..most notably a group that is looking to a 'designated authority' for what to think....
theodicys work on the the basis you can't prove them either way, yet in essence in reality one can never be absolute on anything we just really get as close as we can to it probalby did happen or it probably didn't theodicys the very best ones have been refutted...i think DR. Craig hedges hsi bets heavily on the fact that most are rnot real educated.........yet the thing is once one starts to research and explore minds change ,but if you keep them limited you keep them subservient.... the way tot do that is idscredit the character of the other or exploit fears and insecurities....... its part and parcel of religion .. but one must remember it has a vested interest in staying in business.....

Dr.Erhman not a philosophy student per say yet the argument is as excellent as they come on many levels.....you get a great persepctive from both pov..he masterfully appeals to both groups.....he simply says based on his expertise which he has incidentlaly ( Craig has no other background except religion from the beleivers stance...) that there isn't anything substantial to daw on or to conclude that the ressurection is a fact.....Its fair on every level... simple as that ...

wht you decide is on you that is what he infers with his argument.....i conclude he makes great use of his critical skills and in my opinion he is justified in his reasoning.....and has supported it...

Thank you for your evaluation of the debate Sheri. This debate and the question time lasted for two hours, so I know you put in a lot of time and effort in arriving at your conclusions. However, I am wondering whether your report perhaps has some bias against Dr. Craig, and in favour towards Dr. Ehrman? Following are some reasons for my observation:

* You write that Dr. Craig’s argument will best work on a group that has “no other thought systems to drawn on”.
When you wrote this, did you take into consideration the "probable education and views" of the audience present at this debate?

* If I understand you correctly, you write that theodicy’s best arguments have been refuted.
Are you sure of that?
As I see it, the existence of a Creator God has not been refuted.

* You say that you think DR. Craig hedges his bets heavily on the fact that most are not real educated.
Did you consider the probable level of education of the audience at this debate?
I think perhaps you may have misjudged here.

* If I read you correctly, you seem to imply that Dr. Craig somehow was discrediting Dr. Ehrman’s character – and/or was also exploiting the fears and insecurities of the audience.
I can not see where this can be deduced from what Dr. Craig said in the debate.

* You write that, “Craig has no other background except religion from the beleivers stance…”.
That does not seem to be quite so, if you consider Dr. Craig’s credentials, as given in the introduction before the debate:
“William Lane Craig has a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham … He has been research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology for the past ten years. …”

I personally think the debate was very close to being a draw.
Thanks again Sheri, for taking the time to sum up the debate,

Would be nice if anyone else were to write a review of the debate ...
Karlis

I brought this same topic up about two years ago. Here was my response ...

CRAIG VS EHRMAN
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry1468813

Ehrman really took it to Craig. I'm particularly fond of his [Craig] refusal--even during Q&A--to answer Ehrman's questions regarding problems, mistakes, or errors in the New Testament documents. He did no less than run with his tail tucked between his theological legs!

Answer from Dr. Craig: O.K., Dr. Ehrman is trying to play a little debater’s trick here on me, in which I simply refuse to participate. The criterion at issue is: if an account is simple, shows a lack of theological embellishment, and so forth, then it is more likely to be probable and credibly historical. And I think that’s true. But this isn’t a debate over biblical inerrancy. So my attitude toward whether I think there are any errors or mistakes in the Bible is irrelevant. That would be a theological conviction. Historically, I am using the same criteria that he is, and I am perfectly open to his showing that there are errors and mistakes in the narratives. That’s not the issue tonight.

Biblical inerrancy is a big issue in his personal life that led him to abandon his Christian faith. But I am not presupposing any sort of doctrine of theological inerrancy or biblical inspiration–nor are those scholars who think these four facts are established by the criteria of authenticity that he himself champions. So my attitude theologically toward the reliability or the mistakes in the Bible is just irrelevant tonight. The question is, what can you prove positively using the standard criteria? And my argument is that when you use those criteria, you can prove positively those basic four facts about the fate of Jesus subsequent to his crucifixion.

Answer from Dr. Ehrman: So apparently it’s O.K. to have theological assumptions about the resurrection, but it’s not O.K. to have theological assumptions about the historical sources that the belief in the resurrection is based upon. If the belief in the resurrection is based on certain sources which are in the Bible and if these sources by their very nature have to be inerrant, then naturally you would conclude that the resurrection had to happen. But Bill refuses to tell us whether he thinks that the Bible has errors in it or not. He won’t tell us that because he teaches at an institution which professors agree that the Bible is inerrant without any mistakes in all of its words. And so he cannot believe that the Bible has any mistakes. If he does think the Bible has mistakes, then I’d like him to tell us two or three of them. If he doesn’t think the Bible has mistakes, I would like know how he can say how he’s using the Gospels of the New Testament as historical sources. He can’t critically evaluate these sources, and the one thing that historians have to do is be able to critically evaluate the sources that they base their claims on.

Zing!

Sean

Head of nail, meet hammer