Loading...Feel free to comment (here on the blog) on what you see if you see any of it!
(Live Debate on FACTS Podcast, with Bart Ehrman and Jonathan Sheffield)
Did Jesus rise from the dead? This debate focuses on the historical evidence surrounding the resurrection, examining early testimony, eyewitness claims, the empty tomb, and the origins of resurrection belief. Don’t miss this free event!
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
23 Comments
Leave A Comment
I’ve seen you debate him before. He seemed ill prepared to face off with you. I wonder if he will be able to present a compelling case this time.
Me too. In an hour I’ll be finding out!
On the last debate you did with him he did not listen to anything you said. He was not able to answer your questions and he constantly deflected and changed subject. I thought that that had to have been a waste of your time. The parts about Matthew copying mark and his theory that the deciples were taking notes was excruciating. I loved your responses though. He also made out in the comments like he won the debate too,which was unbelievable.
I’ve never debated anyone yet who said they lost!! Funny thing about debates…
I’m quasi-evangelical and hold a very high view of Scripture.. and I have to admit that I haven’t seen a single debate where you clearly lost.
A few of your dialogue partners have put up a challenge, but in my view they still came up short. At the end of the day, many of them simply haven’t done their homework. And that’s frustrating. It shouldn’t be the case that someone who doesn’t even profess Christian faith demonstrates a stronger command of the biblical material than the people defending it.
They’re debating on their own turf and still failing to capitalize on that advantage. Christians, frankly, need to raise their level of preparation and engagement. It’s embarrassing.
I was taught that belief in the Resurrection of Jesus was a life transforming act of faith. We thought it actually happened of course but simply affirming it as a historical “fact” wasn’t faith. (Satan presumably accepts that the Resurrection actually happened, right?) Do these apologists who insist they can “prove” the Resurrection as a historical fact think that simply accepting their claims brings “salvation”, or is it that they assume that accepting their historical clams will automatically lead one to faith? I can envision a category of person who might accept the historical claim but not have any level of personal commitment.
Have you had occasion to discuss this with your evangelistic debate partners? What’s their actual thinking?
My sense is that they think that if you have “reason” to believe you’re more likely to believe. It’s a bit difficult to understand how that is “faith” intead of “probably knowledge” to me. I have to admit, I used to argue that one coudl prove the resurrectdoin too (back in my late teens), and, well, I’m not sure I’d ever really thought about this problem. I just thought that if something was historical and true you could demonstrate it. I guess I wasn’t thinking much about a lot of things back then….
Tradition states that Jesus died on a Friday before sundown and rose on Sunday before sunrise. Three literal days and nights, however, would mean he died on a Wednesday before sundown and rose on Saturday after sundown. Based on your knowledge of manuscripts and other available sources, what are your thoughts?
It is usually thought that the original phrasing among Jesus’ followers was “on the third day” but that because of other influences (possibly Jonah 2:17, since Jonah came to be seenas a forshadowing of Jesus) it was altered to “three days and three nights.” The common explanatoin is that in Jewish reckoning any *part* of a day or a night* counts as an entire “day and night” — but I dont know that that’s the case…. More likely it was altered.
Thanks for the opportunity to listen to the debate!
I watched another debate you had with this fellow. Can’t say he impresses me much. He clings to his predetermined outcome without any regard to what anyone else (including you) says. Haven’t seen him debate anyone else, but my guess is, he responds in all the same ways, no matter who’s across from him.
I watched this debate. You are definitely a better debater.
I was intrigued by Jonathan’s thesis, proceeding from negative evidence (“the dog that didn’t bark,” the empty tomb, the failure of educated elites in antiquity to falsify Jesus’s resurrection when they had the intellectual chops to do so/had done so with other similar claims in antiquity, the Big Bang origin of the physical universe, “singularity”/”the black swan”), correlated with the Gospels’ and Paul’s positive stories of Jesus/Christ’s resurrected body/spirit. It struck me as inventive and reasonable, but poorly argued; he couldn’t keep up with you and your arguments based purely on historical methods and logic.
You said you used to argue that resurrection was historical too, when you were in your evangelical days. But as I have understood you, your past argument was based on the faith in Biblical inerrancy, or God’s word as the source. Did you argue then using anything like what Jonathan was trying to do? I think your best refutation of him was that there were no laws of physics before the Big Bang; it created the laws of physics.
No, my arguments for resurrection were actdually not base don inerrancy. If you grant inerrancy, there is nothing to argue. It’s true! MY arguments were based on allegedly verifiable data (empty tomb; appearances; apostles being willing to die for it; no other possible explanatoins, etc.)
There are lots and lots of holes in Jonathan’s argument, even just with his claims of analogous cases of Livy and the bacchanalia, Lucian and Alexander the false prophet, his understanding of imperial policies and practiees == but I didn’t have time to go into them and they would take a lot of background even to explain.
I need to watch the recording. I’ve never understood the need to prove the Resurrection as a historical fact. Why just the Resurrection though? Why not debate that the miracles can be historically proven as well? Prove that Jesus was born from a virgin. I don’t recall debates about those topics. What about debates for how a person should be saved? Or whether or not Jesus believed in a fiery hell. Or whether he was the Son of Man. Might be something to think about in the future if you haven’t done them already. A lot of the debate topics seem to be repeated several times over. That would be fine if the opponent had something new to offer, but many times they don’t.
I just came across a debate I haven’t seen. It’s with Kyle Butt: The pain and suffering in the world indicate that the Christian God does not exist…now that one sounds interesting. I need to watch that one too.
Have there been any debates where you weren’t that confident you argued your side well?
Not so much. I’ve had debates where I wish I hadn’t lost my cool….
I’m bummed I missed this, just now seeing it. Was this recorded? If so where could I hear/see it?
Yup: google sheffield ehrman debate resurrection
Thank you for your reply. The arguments you didn’t go into would probably have been over my head anyway. I’m unfamiliar with those antiquity sources.
I do think that scientific argument is on more solid ground when it proceeds more from “falsification” than “verification.” So, on that score, I am willing to cut Jonathan some slack for his efforts.
Also: you made the point about “faith,” being the basis of accepting miracles. Certainly, during his life, Jesus used “faith” as the basis of providing feedback on his miracles that worked, as reported in the Gospels. So, if Jesus worked faith-based miracles during his lifetime, why should anybody try to explain miracles naturalistically or scientifically? I realize some scholars have tried, e.g., the boat was closer to the shore than Peter et al. thought when Jesus “walked on the water.” I understand their motivation. But it kind of seems to give too much ground to “science”/historical truths, without really making much headway.
All-in-all, I recognize the historians/scientists/apologists/mythicists are going at Jesus from their own preferred analytical biases. No need to reply to this, unless you want to clarify something for me. I’m definitely a novice in this field of interest.
Hi Dr. I recently watched a YouTube interview you did(with Alex O’Conner?) on the resurrection. I thought you were liking the resurrection of Jesus to apparitions of Mary; that 500 people believed they were seeing Jesus, but it was an apparition. Am I understanding your view correctly? If so, consider Luke 24:33-48…..“I am not a spirit(apparition) touch me (Vine’s HANDLE #1) and see for a spirit does not have flesh and bones like I have.” Consider the apostles’ testimony….“You crucified Jesus, but God raised Him from the dead and we are his witnesses to these things.”(Acts 2:31,32, 3:26, 4:33, 5:29-32, 10:38-40, 13:28-39, 17:31, 26:22-26….etc…etc. Not only did they touch/handle Him, but they ate with Him; different places at different times. Isn’t your view akin to the Gnostic’s view?
Jesus not only stated that He would rise from the dead (Matthew 17:22,23, 20:19…etc), but that his *BODY* would be raised not just soul and spirit (John 2:19-22). So the questions, “How do you reconcile this with your view? What is your best book on the subject, and is there a particular debate/YouTube video that you’ve done on this topic that best shows/supports your view?
Thank-you in advance for your time
My view in large part is predicated on the scholarly view that the Gospels contain sayings of Jesus that are not historical — that is, things he didn’t really say. Without that view (which, I think, can be clearly demonstrates as being correct) then there would be no reason for anyone to doubt the resurrectoin. The Bible says so, so it happened. So too, if the Bible has Jesus saying what is in Luke 24 Matthew 17 or what the apostles say in Acts, then right, there’s no point saying Jesus was not raised, since they SAY so and what the Bible is recorded as them saying is what they really said. I don’t think they did say these things, however, so I don’t try to reconcile my views with what them.
I had a hard time following Jonathan’s argument. Bringing up Richard Carrier is wild to me lol. I did not know Celsus thought Mary was hysterical until this debate. Very amusing.
I mean, we do have some historical grounds regarding the Resurrection. Aren’t some of the sayings considered historical? Like, “Peace be with you…Do not be afraid….Feed my sheep….I am with you always…Receive the Holy Spirit.” It’s especially profound that Jesus told the disciples, “Peace be with you.” That’s very much a Jesus thing to say, isn’t it? He follows it up with, “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” If the supernatural element isn’t considered, what words and phrases are from the historical Jesus?
It’s interesting that Peter, Paul, and James saw Jesus and didn’t have the experience of condemnation due to their denial, persecution, and unbelief. Instead, they were forgiven (Peace be with you) and they were given instructions (Feed my sheep). Their individual experiences are similar and back up some of the sayings in the Gospels.
Basically, it can be historically proven that in this Resurrection experience they had, Jesus not only appeared to them, but spoke to them as well?
I don’t think we can say that any of the resurrected Jesus’s sayings can be established as historical, if they are dependent on him being raised. Paul, our only surviving “witness” doesn’t say anything about Jesus saying anything in his appearance.
singularly dr ehrman utterly out debated his opponents
but with many debaters, they all gAng up on him.
I enjoyed those at bible schools as the reporter would ask the students who they thought won the debate