Historian has New Resurrection Evidence? (Dr Bart Ehrman vs Dr Gary Habermas)

Expert historian Dr. Gary Habermas recently took to YouTube to unveil some new evidence he found in support of the resurrection of Jesus. However, as he invoked Dr. Bart Ehrman as his authority for several of the claims, we reached out to this friend-of-the-channel to see if the resurrection historian accurately depicted the New Testament authority.

*************
*************

This Historian has NEW Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

Special thanks to @BittyBuddha_

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Support Paulogia at

Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast

Follow Paulogia at

[kamilgregor]

Habermas' misrepresentation of Ehrman is a great example of how information transforms in oral re-telling.

[tyler-qrjn]

If this event was so crucial to humanity, why would be so hard to prove? It's borderline unprovable.

[zenfey]

"I've got some brand new evidence that should already be familiar to some of you" has the exact same energy as when a rapper hops onto their very first track and opens up with "you already know who it is"

[PotatoTrain]

The thumbnail for this says it all and yet I'm still going to watch and love every moment 😂 Thanks Paulogia for doing what you do best!

[benstillman]

i like that gary habermas is a direct eyewitness of bart ehrman's positions, in the current age of technology and information, and still misconstrues them.

now imagine what a *non-eyewitness* in the *ancient world* might think of someone's positions...

better yet, imagine reading this material 2000 years later and thinking you know *either* person's positions...

[Grim_Beard]

In his 'minimal facts' argument, Habermas demonstrated that he doesn't know what facts are. Now, with his 'new evidence' he demonstrates that he doesn't know what 'new' or 'evidence' are either.

[Ken_Scaletta]

I like how Habermas calls Ehrman a "skeptic" as if that's somehow discrediting. you can tell somebody is not a scholar when they refer to critical methodology as "skepticism." If you're not skeptical, you're not doing it right. Habermas' position is that Christianity should simply be believed with no evidence or methodological justification or else you're stupid, lost or evil.

[lLadyAszneth]

This was really great Paul, and Bart; thank you. This happened to me as well. I was raised in the Nazarene church (thanks for the condolences), and was also an adoptee like my brother before me but this was never withheld from us. In fact, our parents explained it to us as soon as we were old enough to understand. They also gave us basics that was in our state adoption records, and is something important for an adopted child; who can truly feel like they have NO ties to their real lineage. I was always told I was French and English. Great, that gave me something. BUT, when he and I were respectively 18, we were allowed to read our adoption records. Turns out they left out a little something from my birth mother's side: Jewish! Well, first I was infuriated and when I demanded an explanation my parents said in exact words: "We didn't want you getting any ideas.". Meaning, nothing contrary to the BS I was raised in! They knew how much I loved learning and education but constantly discouraged me from it bc MY only task was to find a spouse and begin producing offspring!

I said all that to say this: I began visiting the Reform synagogue just a mile down from our church, took Hebrew classes then Old Testament classes in Hebrew and OMG were my eyes "opened" to the awful mistranslation mistakes sadly made by Jewish scribes creating the Septuagint that, IMO, has led to these stories about Joshua's so-called divinity narratives. It wasn't long after that when I stopped denying my inner atheist.

Sorry for the long post, but I had to get it out! 😒🙁

[streetsdisciple]

Habermas: references Bart Ehrman
Paulogia: Brings in Bart Ehrman

Edit: Also wanted add that ppl should watch the debate between Dr. Ehrman & Dr. Justin Bass regarding the divinity of Jesus as
Dr. Ehrman referenced it in the video.

[DesGardius-megf]

I like how Ehrman has a no-bullshit, facts-only approach to the NT, but still remands tactful despite his bluntness.

[erimgard]

A friend of mine re-converted to Christianity as an almost 30 year old because of Habermas. I'm like...stunned. His arguments are so bad.

[lilrobbiek]

Dr. Habermas: "Bart Ehrman, atheist NT scholar agrees that [ X, Y, Z ] shows that this thing I'm telling you about the resurrection is accurate."
Dr. Ehrman: "Nope."

[weirdwilliam]

This misrepresentation of Ehrman’s words, by someone who knows him, is exactly why the second-hand (100th-hand?) accounts of the gospels are so problematic.

[incredulouspasta]

_"They heard these things before Jesus died, but they didn't realize them until he was raised from the dead"_

This should be a huge red flag for Christians: that the "high Christology" and the resurrection was a rationalization by the disciples after his death. "Ah, yes... Jesus was talking about his own resurrection and divinity all along, we just didn't realize it until now... totally. It requires special revelation from God to put the pieces together, you wouldn't understand."

[bobwhelan]

Oddly, this new "evidence" seems like little more than a rearrangement of the old "evidence".

[BittyBuddha_]

I’m convinced Gary Habermas voices Peter Griffin. 😂

[DigitalGnosis]

Cameron: “I don’t know what he’s talking about” 😂😂

[TheCheapPhilosophy]

Why would a real God that is alive today, need any "historical evidence" for his existence?!?
While humans cannot produce a living God, "historical evidence" seems exactly the kind of thing humans could have concocted, Joseph Smith.

[Simon.the.Likeable]

Don't be disappointed, it is Capturing Christianity after all. No expectations - no disappointment, it's that simple.

[con.troller]

Habermas citing Ehrman in defense of the resurrection is like William Lane Craig citing Hawking to support the Kalam Cosmological non-Argument.