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.
I have heard this objection raised. It goes something like this:
A resurrection rrequires dead cells to come back to life. Hasn't science determined that such a state of affairs is clearly impossible? Through observation and testing, scientific laws are formulated in order to state what normally happens under certain circumstances. These laws have been observed throughout the past. We get similar results most of the time. By understanding the laws of science and how living cells work, we know that when humans die they stay dead. Their cells do not just regenerate, allowing them to return to life.
Therefore, assuming that the laws of nature are consistent, many skeptics claim that it is irrational to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, since science has proven that resurrections are impossible.
But does scientific investigation really show that resurrections are impossible- period? Not at all. First, what science has shown is that a person is not going to rise from the dead by natural causes. But this does not apply to Jesus' resurrection, since it is not claimed that Jesus came back to life naturally. That is, the chances of Jesus rising from the dead by natural causes are about zero. However, if the God of traditional theism exists and desired to raise Jesus from the dead, these natural chances do not affect Jesus' rising from the dead.
Second, the Redurrection is not an isolated event; it occurred in an interconnected religio-historical context that helps to provide meaning. The context includes such facts as Jesus' personal claims to divinity, his deeds that appeared miraculous in nature (attested by non-New Testament sources), and his predictions concerning his resurrection. Jesus' life and claims happened within a contest in which his resurrectionn is right at home.
Here's an illustration. If someone reported that they had seen Mike's grandfather walking around after being dead for over twenty years, we would have no context in which to believe them. Mike's grandfather never claimed divinity, never performed a miracle, and did not predict that he would rise from the dead. Obviously, we would rightly have many serious questions. It is much more likely that some sort of misunderstanding has taken place. But if we also saw Mike's grandfather, especially in groups and on several occasions, in contexts where we could check out the circumstances, we might begin to wonder.
Now if, unlike Mike's grandfather, these events did occur in a religiously significant environment, as in Jesus' case, the situationn would differ on another level. We might even begin thinking about the possibility that God was at work. It seems that this is what happened to jesus' disciples, as well as to James, the brother of Jesus, and Paul (the early church persecutor). The evidence overwhelmed them all.
Thus, this objection does not apply to Jesus' resurrection unless a naturalistic theory to explain the accepted historical facts about Jesus' death is workable, and one has not emerged in 2,000 years. These historical facts are:
1. Jesus' death by crucifixion.
2. The sincere belief of the disciples that they encountered the risen Jesus.
3. The conversion of the skeptic James, the brother of Jesus.
4. The conversion of the church persecutor, Paul.
5. The tomb was empty.
It's not really an objection, it's more of an observation.
While scientific research has never really shown that resurrection is impossible, it has also never really shown that it is possible.
It's very easy to say something has happened from something other than natural causes, because it can never be proven nor dis-proven.
There is no illustration, that can be applied, it is merely a matter of faith. If it was believable, one would assume that throughout history, more people would have become believers.
You're trying to prove it. let's see it.
I have no doubt, that to an eyewitness it would not be a matter of faith. I just question the validity of the reports, and as you said, today's believers acknowledge the resurrection by faith. Thank you for such an honest answer.
On what ground do you question the validity of the eyewitness reports of Jesus' post-mortem appearances?
Mainly because I do not believe anyone can come back from the dead, and the reports are very old.
There exists indisputable proof of God the Father and of Jesus Christ – but it is not available to those who do not have “ears to hear”. That proof is the indwelling Spirit Himself.
Christ is alive, not dead. We know Him personally. I’ve known him for 46 years already and am very much aware of being alive in timelessness while yet in the flesh, temporally bound (Col 3:3)
Likewise, because we know Him personally, Spiritual knowledge is the most certain knowledge we possess. It trumps all sensory perception, reasoning and other forms of “how we know what we know and how sure we are that we know it.”
Those who do not have “ears to hear” cannot understand any of this. For them, Spiritual knowledge does not exist.
And some who do have “ears to hear” – like doubting Thomas – have more confidence in their own sensory perception and reasoning than in what little Spiritual knowledge they allow by their own willfulness.
But for those of us who were blessed with “ears to hear” and surrender to the Spirit’s leading (Romans 8) – reality itself is God’s will and unknowable in its fullness.
Therefore, we do not question miracles, we understand parables. Truly, the Scriptures are not just text-on-paper but are alive in us.
No presence or absence of historical evidence, empirical evidence, reasoning or mathematical proofs can diminish Truth to us. It is pointless to try.
When we observe things in the physical Creation we rejoice over His faithfulness. We see Him in the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, in cosmologies, in the fabric of space/time, in the mysteries of quantum mechanics, in the persistence of the will to live in biological systems, in language, the archeological record, the geologic record and indeed the cosmos. Truly, as the Psalmist said:
If one accepts the existence of an omnipotent God, the author of the universe and its natural laws, cannot God operate independently of those laws and work a miracle to regenerate a dead human body?
As for the age of the reports, it is more significant that the reports were made by eyewitnesses very close to the time of the purported event. Biblical scholars have dated early creeds and sermon summaries found in 1Corinthians and Acts to within a few years after Jesus' crucifixion. Incidentally, this also administers a slam dunk against Dan Brown's claim in The Da Vinci Code that the divinity of Jesus was only established at the Council of Nicea by Emperor Constatntine centuries later. Jesus' divinity was taught by the apostles from the very beginning.
It is interesting to note that the first counter theory raised by skeptics was that someone had removed Jesus' body from the tomb.
stuartcr, I enjoy talking about these things and I hope you don't think I'm just an argumentative *#)#!
Oh so beautifully said, Alamo-Girl! Thank you for this magnificent post/essay.
I don't know what it is with modern man, but he craves "certainty." If something can't be demonstrated, it can't possibly be "true." But oh, how short-sighted that is! Truth is "true" without being "certain." Unless you know absolutely everything there is to know, then how can you say you know any particular thing for an absolute certainty? We are contingent beings born into this earthly life in midstream; we know neither the past nor the future: It is the fate of man to be neither the cause nor the end of himself. This is a truth that is impossible for anyone to "demonstrate," and yet it represents the only real certainty we have.
This is why spiritual knowledge is so indispensable. It provides the context in which to live our lives as full human beings.
We also see His hand operating through fulfilled prophecy and through the historical record. These things combine as "sensory" evidence enabling us rationally to understand that "the ears to hear" that we've been granted by the Spirit are right on track in pointing toward the Truth.
Such evidence as prophecy and historical record are not "proof within a reasonable doubt." They are more like "the preponderance of the evidence."
Pray that the Holy Spirit opens other eyes so they can see. And pray that one enlightened does not "draw back." Those who exercise their right to resist will throw away a wonderful gift.
This is why spiritual knowledge is so indispensable. It provides the context in which to live our lives as full human beings.
And I join with you in your prayer:
Wrong. Paul was every much an Apostle as any of the other 12. See Rom 1:1 as well as many other of Paul's letters.
The evidence for the big bang is pretty tenuous and imperceptible to most people.
The people that try to tear down your faith have none of their own. They are lonely, empty vessels of hate and bitterness with no where to go for strength. They hate and resent our inner strength from our faith. They hate it because they want it, but they can't handle it because it comes with rules, very definite rules, and they don't like rules. Why, I don't know. If they would accept it, they would be better for it, but they have a different way to go about life.
These people go through life hating everything that is good, and decent. They want to pervert everything that is decent. If I have no one, I have my God, and Jesus, a man that gave His life for me. They have nothing. In a way I can feel sorry for them, but they brought that upon themselves.
They deny God, and they disdain Jesus, they spit on the Holy Bible. They blaspheme the name of God. They live for themselves and justify it in the name of some false concept of, whatever. Rules to them are archaic, and nonsensical.
Live your life that way and you will find the end of that life will be unfulfilled and empty. It will be nobody's fault but your own. Find Christ, find God and you will be forgiven.
A quote from the Son of God: He who beliefit in Me shall not parish, but shall live forever in the Kingdom of God.
I'd say that that's pretty good deal, better that all the rest.
I actually get embarrassed for extreme skeptics who posit outlandish theories to explain away the known facts associated with Jesus and His death and resurrection. Five important facts are listed earlier in this thread. I've heard things like "Jesus was a space alien" or "He was a totally mythical character" or "Anyone who says he saw Jesus resurrected was hallucinating."
These are "drive-by" type explanations used by someone who wishes to avoid the facts. But when you methodically unpack these opposing theories you find they are rife with errors and implausibilities and they cannot account for the known facts. I hold onto the possibility that the skeptic, or perhaps someone listening to the conversation, will be stirred to question their anti-Jesus bias and presuppositions. A newly opened mind could lead them to be more receptive to the call of the Holy Spirit. It's a mission field of sorts.
In Christ,
dukeman
I do not say that it is impossible for the Creator to do anything, I just do not believe it happened. Just as I do not believe in fairies and elves, which God could also create.
With reference to someone coming back from the dead, I do not believe eyewitnesses from 2000yrs ago. As a matter of fact, I would be very skeptical even today.
I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on it.
Being a *#)#!, is what is so great about anonymous forums. There must be dozens here, that consider me one....I just call it doing freelance advocacy work for the little guy with a pitchfork.
Why then, is it so wrong for someone to be of a different faith? If true is true, and no one can be, or need be, certain enough of it to be able to prove it, what is the big deal about different religions, or just believing in God?
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.