Posted on 06/06/2006 11:58:40 AM PDT by dukeman
A Debate between
William Lane Craig and Bart D. Ehrman
On March 28, 2006, Dr. Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California, and Dr. Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, debated the status of the Christian claim to Jesus' resurrection from the perspective of historical data. The debate was sponsored by the Center for Religion, Ethics and Culture and the Campus Christian Fellowship.
But more accurate than you know.. (probably)
I renew and join in xzins' prayer:
The answer of course is yes there is excellent historical evidence for the Resurrection.
Ehrman seems to reject it because of emoition rather than reason. His argument seems to be from my scanning that historians can't consider the existence of God so they can't consider the occurrance of miracles so the they can't accept the Resurrection. This, of course, is silly.
If you factor in God, the Resurrection becomes a near certainty based on the historical evidence.
Bravo to your post #69 - I just found it! Hooray!
Indeed! Once the objections are unpacked and analyzed, it turns out that most skeptics are operating under a presupposition in favor of naturalistic explanations for everything and against the supernatural. "It cannot be that God exists and Jesus is who he claimed to be, so it must be something else" appears to be the rule. Thus, it is a matter of will- the willl not to follow the evidence whereever it leads.
And there is the great irony. Christian believers are said to be narrow-minded, but it turns out it is the extreme skeptics who are unable to open their minds to the possibility that this physical world is not all there is. God's sense of humor, demonstrated again!
Very true, A-G.
Exactly! :-)
Great post bump!
Thank you oh so very much for your encouragements!
Thank you for your agreement, dear Tribune7!
But what if -- and it's a BIG what if, I grant you -- both birth and death are phase transitions of of something more fundamental that exists always? Isn't this what is indicated by the term "immortal soul" -- that something being life everlasting, which is the esssence of what we mean by "soul" -- compared to which physical incarnation is "merely" existence?
The thought occurs to me that Jesus Christ, as both the Son of Man and the Son of God Incarnate, came not only to atone for and redeem fallen man by restoring him in good grace to the Father by means of His sacrifice on the Cross, but to show us our own true, essential human nature. And He had to "come back from the dead" to do that. If His sacrifice were just a matter of restoring us to His Father, it seems to me that wouldn't have been necessary. The point is He wanted to show Himself to us as still living.
I'm taking some cues from classical metaphysics here, especially from Plato with his contrast between Being (life) and Becoming (existence). I feel I am somewhat warranted in doing so, for the great saint and doctor of the Church, St. Augustine himself, was a Platonist; or more precisely a Neo-Platonist, who effected a synthesis of classical metaphysics and Christian theology in his own thought.
It seems to me that there is no real opposition between Faith and Reason.
I certainly agree with you that "God made me the way I am...just as He did all of us." Amen to that, stuartcr!
Thank you so much for writing!
Very insightful, hosepipe. Which tells me that one must separate the gold from the dross....
I am convinced that faith and reason are not at all mutually exclusive. How could they be? For God created us in His image, as possessing both reason and free will -- the foundations of faith.
Thanks so much hosepipe for your insightful post/essay!
Yes, it seems you won't even accord the title of human being to anyone that doesn't believe as you do.
Life everlasting would be wonderful, I certainly hope it is so.
I want to see it. I hold open the posibility this stuff may exist but I'd like to see it. If you're going to make the contention please back it up. You of all should know, being the veteran of "Neverending" and all, that what I ask is standard procedure.
Precisley my point. I know of other Christians who hold the same postion you do regarding these writings. Conversely, I have to hold open the posibility that they may not have been tampered with. I highly suspect they have been but then many believers highly suspect they haven't. However, enough doubt exists about their authenticity that its my position its going out on too big a limb to dogmatically use these in serious apologetics. Thank you for your honesty.
Again, repeating, I don't accept your premise. To assume those writings are the same today as existed in Rome is a reach. To hang your hat on the credibility of Origen is a bit shakey. You're seemingly unaware his credibility, even among Catholics, isn't exactly pure as the wind driven snow.
Wonderful decison.
Bwahahahaha ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.