Thursday, March 19, 2009

Faith vs. Evidence

For that reason, Bill’s four pieces of evidence are completely irrelevant. There cannot be historical probability for an event that defies probability, even if the event did happen. The resurrection has to be taken on faith, not on the basis of proof. [emphasis added]

Bart Ehrman - Debate vs William Craig 2006

(ht:

2 comments:

Joshua said...

Makes sense. There are limits to what you can do with the tools of historical analysis.

Even if the resurrection did happen, it would be so outside of our modern experience that the principle of analogy would not let us accept it as a historical event. We can't declare it impossible, but it would require so much evidence that it becomes practically impossible to prove.

Steven Carr said...

Does Craig really claim that you are only allowed one naturalistic theory to explain both the burial of Jesus and appearance to disciples?

In the mind of first-century people, the testimony of a sleeping person was not considered credible.

So why would the Pharisees say that the body had been stolen while the guards were sleeping, unless that really were the case?