Christopher Hitchens at his best

It’s a bit long :slight_smile: I got about 17:00 in. I think I’m getting the gist of it–there are reasons why we should especially believe Paul in the opinion of Dr. Habermas.

Fine–I’ve certainly heard plenty of similar arguments before. But I don’t see how it contradicts anything I’ve said above. Is there a short version somewhere? I’d be interested in reading more from him but I can’t sit through a whole video. Maybe he would have said something amazing and I missed it because I couldn’t be bothered :slight_smile: But he lost me a bit there–again, I’m not unfamiliar with this kind of stuff in general.

I’m aware of some, but I’m not aware of any meaningful confirmation that the resurrection occurred. To be clear, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, and I’m not saying it didn’t. I’m simply saying that disbelief is a reasonable position based on the evidence.

But it’s not a reasonable one based upon an impatience with investigating the historical sources.
If you “can’t be bothered,” that’s certainly a choice. But, let me ask why such an “irrational” idea ever gained the slightest credence in the first place, historically and up to the present?
Do you have the courage to doubt your provisional certainty of this all being trivial?

2 Likes

Did I say trivial? I will say that even if the resurrection did happen, I’m not sure what it’s supposed to signify, so maybe it’s apt. Anyway, I believe I do have such courage, but I don’t feel obligated to watch every video about it. I’ve heard similar arguments before. I’m a bit more of a reader than a video watcher, really.

That being said, I was about to post this but I ran into a Discourse first-day poster posting limit. So I had some time, and in the interest of learning more and not being perceived as a total stick in the mud here :slight_smile:, I watched the rest of Habermas’s talk. Again, they aren’t arguments I’m unfamiliar with. I’m aware of the historical significance of 1 Corinthians 15:3, and his meetings with the “pillars”. But Habermas extrapolates too far from these nuggets IMO. We’re still getting word that has had 20 years to percolate when we read Paul, and that is significant. I’d also mention that I find it confusing that Paul claims to have had a special revelation, and how that squares with these more mundane self-attested paths of transmission. As many do, Habermas mentions the normal standards for assessing historical claims. In my view, in short, Tiberius doesn’t claim to be resurrected (or any other incredible supernatural claims) as far as I know, and if one of his historical sources claims that he was, that doesn’t mean I would necessarily believe that either.

Habermas mentions Ehrman often–but in my understanding Ehrman doesn’t believe in the resurrection. I would be interested in reading what Habermas refers to as Ehrman’s statement that the gospel can be traced back to “one year after the cross”. It’s not my intent to reject that idea. Still, I don’t see how it could give us an idea about the information’s reliability, which is more my point.

I plan to watch this later–seems fitting as WJC has been talked about a good deal here lately

Edit: hmmm it’s from 2006, a bit long ago. He’s got a debate with Mike Licona from 2011 on the topic. Still looking around a bit. Hmm, Ehrman doesn’t give any indication his views have changed here:

I didn’t call it “irrational”. That being said, all kinds of unproven ideas have gained and do gain credence among people. A list would be endless.

Seems like a good faith effort on your part. Being more of a “reader than video guy,” perhaps this transcripted debate with Ehrman’s comments will reveal the quotes you hope to find. I applaud you for making an honest, skeptical inquiry, and thank you for not trivializing the invitation to learn more. Excuse me if I’ve overspoken --but, obviously, if the resurrection is true, it’s one of the most important things to get to the bottom of thoroughly. Here’s a link you might enjoy, with Ehrman and Craig going at the subject amicably: https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman/
Cheers, and glad you’re back posting!

Thanks. I’m always interested in this stuff. So I’ve heard a lot of the arguments. That’s actually the transcript from the video I posted. I watched it earlier–it actually got a bit warm at times!

By the way that’s not accurate now that I think about it. Paul only claims that Jesus appeared to him, correct me if I’m wrong. But the claim is made in Acts.

“Ehrman and Craig going at the subject amicably” Wow you don’t know the half of it. Notice the ad homs and attacks on Craig’s academic credentials. Bit like Krauss in fact.

Ehrman after the debate about publishing it

“We agreed to stage a public debate, and afterwards I thought some of his arguments were so far removed from anything rational, that I decided giving him a platform to air them was conceding way to much.”

“And I came away from it thinking that he
had not done a very good job in defending his views – especially as he
was completely unable to answer the objections I had raised”

“But I also felt that by
publicizing the debate, it would give him the kind of credibility that he
so desparately is seeking (he claims to have written an enormous number of
books: a lot of them are simply his edited transcripts: as if that’s the
same thing as writing a book!).”

Some of the details are here (it was a long time ago) https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/search?q=ehrman.

It missed out the point that Ehrman did not even want the transcript released.

The funny thing is that Ehrman was touring America about exposing conservative Christians. His e-mail suggests he exposed a leading evangelical but does not want the event publicised. Interesting.

Craig “As for the objections, I’m glad the transcript is
available so that folks can form their own opinions!”

I noticed this about https://ehrmanblog.org/ehrman-vs-craig-evidence-for-resurrection/

Ehrman is still sneery and clearly sore “I would assume that since he posted the transcript he thinks he pretty much mopped me up. Maybe he did!” No - Craig wants differences of scholarship between experts, in the public domain for students and academics to listen and learn from. Gloating over the debate probably did not cross Craig’s mind.

Poor old Hitch - Hitchslapped by Craig, Lennox, D’souza and Lord knows who else.

D’souza? Come on. Not in the same league with Hitch, Craig, and Lennox.

1 Like

Not really. You are applying an artificial standard which simply ignores how historians rely on ancient documents. If scholars were to demand strictly-contemporaneous sources and never from any author with some “insider-interest” in the topic, we would have to throw away most of what we know about the ancient world.

A lot of pseudo-scholarship has been propagated by activists on the Internet which is totally at odds with what academics, both “secular” and “otherwise”, publish on these topics.

I’ve had several atheist faculty colleagues who regularly had to remind over-zealous undergrads on this point (because the students would repeat in class what they had picked up on the Internet.)

You’re right, it’s probably more like 25 :slight_smile: What I said is about what Ehrman said in his talk with Craig. What’s in Paul? A short account that he met with the pillars. A brief statement that he received the gospel. That’s very thin to draw extrapolated conclusions on. And the conclusions are miraculous events clearly not of an ordinary historical character. History doesn’t tell us that sort of thing about the ancient world in any other circumstance I’m aware of. Why can we expect it to here?

To go on a bit more, I do think we can draw some more general conclusions from what we have. A man called Jesus taught in Judea and nearby. He was crucified by the Romans, etc. But “on the third day he rose from the dead” is a huge, specific, and incomparable claim. At best, from the information we have, we can gain a sense that some people believed it around that time.

I’m sure it has, but I’m drawing my own conclusions here. I hardly think they’re some kind of crackpot theory or something; that’s honestly a bit rich.

I do miss Hitchens.

My favorite speech of his:

“On the third day, He rose from the dead” is the ONLY thing that even begins to explain why a group of scared, huddled “sheep” go on to, all of them, risk their lives, and even be martyred, for proclaiming such a message publicly. Who dies for a fairy tale?

Nineteen Islamic hijackers who drove airplanes into buildings.

No, they died for the supposed promise of a lot of loose women surrounding them in heaven, not the words of a back-from-the-dead Savior. Big difference. The followers of Jesus had the proof they needed to trust Him in this fashion.

And you’re claiming that isn’t a fairy tale?

2 Likes

no, not loose woman, but virgins. In heaven that day. God-provided sex slaves. The same God of Abraham, the same God that Jesus is suppose to be. And their families would be taken care of because of their martyrdom. How is that not a fairy tale belief? 1.5 billion adherents today worldwide.

Believe it or not, in certain cultures the fact that a woman is a virgin is near proof positive that she’s in a provisionally seductive mood, because without a child, particularly a male child, she holds absolutely no lasting place of value among her neighbors until she’s at least married. So, it’s about as opposite from a fairy tale as you can get, for her. For him? Well… yes, that qualifies as a fairy tale. How does that compare with the “reward” of following Jesus? There’s no comparison.
Allah is certainly not to be confused with YHWH Elohim; the “moon god” is no match for the one true God.

nice move. Had you pinned. And now for something completely different.

Not this wrestler! Take you on anytime for a friendly match.
Who dies for what they KNOW is just a fairy tale?

You probably already know about this but textual critics of the Quran determined that “virgins” is a mistranslation from the Arabic based upon a likely scribal error. The original word probably referred to grapes, which was a common motif in Ancient Near Eastern descriptions of Paradise. (We still have a bit of that concept surviving in modern times, where even movies depict a life of ease as involving lounging around and being fed grapes one by one.)