Ehrman's rejection of miracles is somewhat like David Hume's argument, in that, miracles should never be believed unless 100% certainty could be given. For the record, 100% certainty is rarely needed in today's culture. Craig, on the other hand, was interested in what best explained the evidence of the empty tomb.
The debate was spirited, but I did notice one thing about Ehrman's presentation during the debate. Ehrman never explained what we are to do with the empty tomb until his closing comment, and he only did this for a minute. Most of Ehrman's effort was to question the biblical documents, without addressing the best explanation for the empty tomb. When Ehrman did finally put forth a theory for the missing body of Jesus, it was a view that has been r
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1532d/1532decb5013f11878a9426ed8df1072511e87b1" alt=""
This ludicrous view has been debunked time and time again, but Ehrman's big blunder was that he never presented his view until the very end. Ehrman's main offensive was to attack the documents of the past in order to show that they can't be trusted. His other big offensive was the denial of any supernatural explanation. While Ehrman was very good and passionate in the debate, he did nothing of substance to help his cause. Craig was able to give solid points in order to show that the best explanation for the empty grave and start of Christianity was most likely that Jesus rose supernaturally from the grave.
You can listen to the debate here: http://www.bringyou.to/CraigEhrmanDebate2006.mp3
1 comment:
I'm in the process of watching this debate now. I'm about 70% through it, and frankly, I've grown tired of Erhman's repetitive arguments. He seems to only repeat again and again that the historian is not allowed to use supernatural explanations (where does he get this rule?) and that miracles by definition are so improbable that they cannot be the most probable answer.
Post a Comment