tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7372843368336936945..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: A Review Of The Second Licona/Ehrman Debate On The ResurrectionRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64562411213531436122009-10-10T20:17:27.976-04:002009-10-10T20:17:27.976-04:00Sam wrote:
"Ehrman said in the debate that G...Sam wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"Ehrman said in the debate that God is necessary for the resurrection, so if Ehrman were basing his doubts of the resurrection on the assumption that God doesn't act in history, he wouldn't have said the resurrection is improbable; he would've said it's impossible since he doesn't believe in God."</i></b> <br /><br />Ehrman is an agnostic. Even if he believed that God probably doesn't exist, he could allow for the possibility of a resurrection performed by God to the extent that God's existence is possible.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"He bases the improbability of the resurrection on the fact that billions of people have died without rising from the dead, so staying dead is nature's usual course. His argument would work whether he believed in God or not. Even if he believed in God he could say that since God usually doesn't raise people from the dead, then it's improbable that he raised Jesus from the dead."</i></b> <br /><br />Past performance is only one factor that would go into judging the likelihood of the event. If future circumstances are different than past circumstances, then something different can occur in the future. There's a first time for everything, and people sometimes do things they haven't done before. In judging the initial probability that God would raise Jesus from the dead, we would have to consider the character of Jesus, the circumstances in which Jesus lived, and other factors Ehrman didn't address. A Christian could argue for Jesus' performance of pre-resurrection miracles, the apostles' ability to perform miracles after purportedly seeing the risen Christ, and other lines of evidence that would raise the initial probability of Jesus' resurrection. The fact that God hasn't raised farmers, housewives, businessmen, and other ordinary people from the dead doesn't tell us much about the likelihood that He would raise Jesus. Ehrman is putting an inordinate amount of emphasis on a factor that's relevant, but not as weighty as he makes it out to be.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"It could be that 'the twelve' includes Matthias because he had also been with Jesus until his ascension, and he was a witness of the resurrection."</i></b> <br /><br />I agree. A problem with Ehrman's objection is that there are multiple explanations of the text that are better than his.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"There are allusions to Peter's crucifixion even in the new testament. That seems to me to be pretty strong evidence that Peter was crucified."</i></b> <br /><br />I agree.<br /><br />Thanks for the link to your article, and thanks for your apologetic work.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-5407872296918523692009-10-10T19:25:37.964-04:002009-10-10T19:25:37.964-04:00But Ehrman's claim that the resurrection has s...<i>But Ehrman's claim that the resurrection has such a high initial improbability depends on his theological assumption that particular entities capable of performing a resurrection, such as God, don't act in history.</i><br /><br />I don't think that's true. Ehrman said in the debate that God is necessary for the resurrection, so if Ehrman were basing his doubts of the resurrection on the assumption that God doesn't act in history, he wouldn't have said the resurrection is improbable; he would've said it's impossible since he doesn't believe in God. He bases the improbability of the resurrection on the fact that billions of people have died without rising from the dead, so staying dead is nature's usual course. His argument would work whether he believed in God or not. Even if he believed in God he could say that since God usually doesn't raise people from the dead, then it's improbable that he raised Jesus from the dead.<br /><br />I think Licona should've pressed Ehrman on the non-Christian miracle accounts. All he had to say was something like, "Well, you're welcome to defend those miracles if you want, but this debate is about the resurrection of Jesus."<br /><br />I think you and Licona are probably right about "the twelve," but it seems to me there's another possibility. It could be that "the twelve" includes Matthias because he had also been with Jesus until his ascension, and he was a witness of the resurrection.<br /><br />There are allusions to Peter's crucifixion even in the new testament. That seems to me to be pretty strong evidence that Peter was crucified. I wrote about that <a href="http://philochristos.blogspot.com/2006/05/how-did-disciples-die.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Sam Harperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15884738370893218595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13750986164632275872009-10-07T22:23:54.350-04:002009-10-07T22:23:54.350-04:00Thanks for the useful and informative post, especi...Thanks for the useful and informative post, especially the remarks on scribes and group naming conventions.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12784922935749497931noreply@blogger.com