"Is the Resurrection of Christ Provable?" Bart Ehrman vs. Mike Licona Debate

[Apologia Xristou]

I just found out that the Christian apologist Mike Licona debated Dr. Bart Ehrman on Feb. 28 at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary & Bible College.

Does anyone know where I can find a video, audio recording, or transcript of that debate?

[Philosophickle]

Nothing yet that I know of, but I think they are producing a DVD of the debate.

[Apologia Xristou]

Nothing yet that I know of, but I think they are producing a DVD of the debate.

That would be great. Thank you for the news!

[LostLibraryGirl]

The Debate was hosted by Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. You can contact the MBTS Library for information on obtaining a copy of the debate: Toll free 1-877-414-3700.

[Apologia Xristou]

The Debate was hosted by Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. You can contact the MBTS Library for information on obtaining a copy of the debate: Toll free 1-877-414-3700.

Thank you so much for this helpful information. I just ordered a DVD of the debate .

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Is the Resurrection of Christ Provable?

Of course it is. If Jesus were to appear in a grand enough way with a resurrected body and resurrect a bunch of dead Christians and transport every disbeliever back in time to see it for themselves then they would become believers and consider it proven.

Has it been proven? Not to my satisfaction.

John Powell

[kumikata]

I just viewed the debate on dvd. Both Licona and Ehrman performed well. Licona did a good job of defending the idea that the resurrection of Jesus can be shown to be the best explanation of the facts that are available to us. Ehrman embarked on the same strategy that he did in his debate with William Lane Craig. Ehrman's position is that miracles are, by their very nature, the least probable option available to the historian and likewise a historian is never justified in claiming a miracle is the best explanation of any given phenomena. (As a side note, I felt Craig dismantled this argument of Ehrman in their debate in 2006 but apparently Ehrman is still convinced that this argument goes through.)

Ehrman seemed to just repeat the same arguments that he did in his debate with Craig. However, he had a distinct advantage right from the beginning in that Licona had lost his voice even prior to the debate and was speaking with a handicap right from the beginning. As the debate went on Licona's voice got weaker and weaker. I couldn't help but think that Mike's position could have come off as stronger had he been able to speak with his regular voice (He was basically whispering through much of the debate). This really came through in the Q & A portion when Licona had to pass on the opportunity to answer a question so that he could save his voice for later in the evening.

[John Powell]

I just viewed the debate on dvd. Both Licona and Ehrman performed well. Licona did a good job of defending the idea that the resurrection of Jesus can be shown to be the best explanation of the facts that are available to us.

POWELL:
Even if true, that wasn't the debate topic so did Licona effectively concede defeat?

Kumikata:
Ehrman embarked on the same strategy that he did in his debate with William Lane Craig. Ehrman's position is that miracles are, by their very nature, the least probable option available to the historian and likewise a historian is never justified in claiming a miracle is the best explanation of any given phenomena. (As a side note, I felt Craig dismantled this argument of Ehrman in their debate in 2006 but apparently Ehrman is still convinced that this argument goes through.)

POWELL:
I agree that Craig was correct about this and Ehrman is still wrong. Apparently, Ehrman does not understand the difference between the prior probability of a claim before the new evidence is considered and the posterior probability after the new evidence is considered. The prior probability of a miracle claim being correct is so low that historians should initially reject miracle claims they encounter in historical literature, however, if the evidence in support is sufficiently reliable then the miracle claim can become the most probable explanation. If the news media and scientists were to report God appearing in a big way, creating another Earth on the other side of the Sun, and raising a bunch of Christians from the dead then would Ehrman, reading these reports a year later, hold to his line that "God did a miracle" would be the least probable explanation for this historical claim?

Kumikata:
Ehrman seemed to just repeat the same arguments that he did in his debate with Craig. However, he had a distinct advantage right from the beginning in that Licona had lost his voice even prior to the debate and was speaking with a handicap right from the beginning. As the debate went on Licona's voice got weaker and weaker. I couldn't help but think that Mike's position could have come off as stronger had he been able to speak with his regular voice (He was basically whispering through much of the debate). This really came through in the Q & A portion when Licona had to pass on the opportunity to answer a question so that he could save his voice for later in the evening.

POWELL:
Unfortunate. Written debates don't suffer that kind of risk.

John Powell

[Mountain Man]

The prior probability of a miracle claim being correct is so low that historians should initially reject miracle claims they encounter in historical literature, however, if the evidence in support is sufficiently reliable then the miracle claim can become the most probable explanation.

Seems that anybody who approaches an historical question with a bias against miracles will be hard pressed to give evidence in favor of a miracle a fair hearing.

[Seasanctuary]

Seems that anybody who approaches an historical question with a bias against miracles will be hard pressed to give evidence in favor of a miracle a fair hearing.

Bias against miracles as a historical answer -- until it is generally proven miracles occur -- is the only intelligent approach.

Miracles do not deserve a fair hearing.

[John Powell]

Seems that anybody who approaches an historical question with a bias against miracles will be hard pressed to give evidence in favor of a miracle a fair hearing.

POWELL:
There are too many claims and not enough time to give every claimant the time they think they deserve. It's possible that you've (metaphorically) invented a perpetual motion machine, but don't expect the patent office to give you the time that you think you deserve before they stamp it "rejected." You may get gullible people to accept your (metaphorical) "get rich scheme," but skeptics won't be persuaded without sufficiently reliable evidence. Don't expect the say-so of you and them to be enough for such a claim.

John Powell

[Mountain Man]

Guys, look at what I said again:

"Seems that anybody who approaches an historical question with a bias against miracles will be hard pressed to give evidence in favor of a miracle a fair hearing."

I highlighted the important part. You're both essentially saying that a miraculous explanation is to be rejected even if it's the best explanation for the evidence.

[Seasanctuary]

You're both essentially saying that a miraculous explanation is to be rejected even if it's the best explanation for the evidence.

Miracles are like alien abductions.

Both are believed to occur by some people, but have not been generally shown to occur. Contrast with full solar eclipses: something most people have never seen but their occurrence is noncontroversial.

If someone claims their absence was due to an alien abduction, it would make a difference if they claimed it in our world where they are not known to actually ever happen vs. a world where they are an accepted fact of life.

Or compare it to personal teleportation. Some illusionists make it appear they have the ability to teleport from one place to another. They go to great pains to make this appear to be "the best explanation for the evidence." We're amazed at their skill, but how often do we think their performance is the result of actual teleportation?

To ask for fairness toward miraculous explanations is really asking everyone to assume their occurrence is noncontroversial so that it can be judged at no disadvantage to any possible alternatives which are noncontroversial as things which can and do happen.

[historic salve]

Both are believed to occur by some people, but have not been generally shown to occur.

Of course miracles don't generally occur. There would be nothing highly unusual about a man rising from the dead if everyone started rising from the dead.

[Seasanctuary]

Of course miracles don't generally occur. There would be nothing highly unusual about a man rising from the dead if everyone started rising from the dead.

I didn't claim miracles have to be common occurrences. Just that they must be generally agreed to occur -- at all, ever -- before they can be given 'fair' consideration with all the things we DO know to occur.

You either get to first prove they occur outside the resurrection of Jesus, or you have to prove no other explanation is possible. Otherwise a miracle can never be the 'best' explanation in contention with possible alternatives.