C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Find him on Patreon Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Join his Patreon and support his ministry

    6 replies to "Debate on the Resurrection: Licona and Erhman"

    • Jugulum

      Nice, I don’t think I’ve seen this before.

      From the title, it looks like they’re not debating whether the Resurrection occurred, or even whether the historical data demonstrates that the Resurrection occurred. They’re debating whether it’s even possible for historical data to demonstrate that a resurrection occurred.

      Is that right?

    • Me

      It is curious that, on their discussion of Romulus and his claimed “resurrection”, neither mentions that most historians agree that Romulus probably didn’t even exist….

    • Rick C.

      I may have heard this debate before. ‘Haven’t watched yet. I did note that Bart bowed his head during the opening prayer. Which, I felt was at least very respectful, seeing as he is agnostic or some type of atheist.

      As an aside: Bart and Mike appeared on this past weekend’s broadcast of the UK radio show Unbelievable! – (scroll to 16 April 2011). Topic: Is there Good Biblical evidence for the resurrection? Also note the week prior with Paul Copan: Is God a Moral Monster?

    • consulscipio

      Erhman seems to have some issues with the truth. I have read his books, and he doesn’t stretch the truth so much as outright lie. His book “Misquoting Jesus” cited the only possible cases of NT interpollation, and then suggested that it was a sample of a much larger pool even though it was the entire pool itself. I noted numerous “errors” in his arguments in the clip, such as his claim that Apolloanius rose from the dead (he did not, according to his biographer “he is said to have” risen a girl from the dead although it wasn’t clear whether she had actually died). His entire argument was one big circular fallacy: he defined miracles like resurrection as being the least probable event, and then asserted that this means they were unlikely to have happened (i.e. his argument was the same as his conclusion, hense a circular argument). Plus he seems to be coming increasingly angry.

      I really don’t get how someone who takes such liberties with the truth continues to be taken…

    • Doc Pagala

      Erhman argues that Scriptural variances make historical claims for the resurrection weak, but fails to take into account the weight of historical evidence found outside the Canon of Scripture that relate to and cross correlate the biblical accounts. His focus on historicity and argument based only on Scriptural accounts make his argument weak. I agree with consulscipio’s assessment that Erhman has truth issues. His arguments are circular and too narrow in scope to support his reasoning. He does have anger issues going on and his body language displays tension and struggle. I’m putting him on my prayer list.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.