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.
stuartcr, I just look at it this way: The Spiritual knowledge that we humans need is contained in the Holy Scriptures, in which God tells us of Himself, of his creation, and of man "truly, but not exhaustively." This is God's Holy Word to us, spoken to us through the prophets, patriarchs, and the Apostles. God is the Author of all that there is, in heaven and on earth: He is Truth. To me, the really important thing is not to which religion or confession one belongs. What is important is to adhere to the spiritual wisdom of God's truth as given to us in the Holy Scriptures. Indeed, they give us everything that is needful for man to be fully human. Man is made in the image of God, and so just naturally made to resonate to God's Truth. We find that Truth in the Holy Scriptures.
The faithful lovers of this Truth are all united in the One Body of Christ, regardless of which confession each of us professes.
Anyhoot, that's how I look at it, FWIW.
OK
Amen! Thank you for your testimony!
The Bible is not 'absolute proof' of anything, in and of itself, was his main point. For a wide variety of reasons.
Reliable 'historical' evidence is first-hand accounts written by eye-witnesses close to when it happened.
And even then, in history, you will get untruths and exaggerations.
So considering the Bible as absolute proof is, historically, a losing debate point.
I can relate to that.. for that was one of the positions I held before I became who I am.. You must believe that way, if you're honest.. I respect you for it.. You are being whom you are.. Indeed the metaphorical phrase Jesus used, "You MUST be born again".. is axiomatic.. I would still believe as I did (as you do) if that did not happen.. Cause its NOT what you believe its a matter of whom you are..
I cannot explain it fully, but it is so.. For once I was a Primate and now I am something else.. I don't even need to try to believe in God.. Belief is so fickle anyway.. Its absolutely a thing of grace. I didn't pick me, God did.. Why?. I don't know, but God did, now I'm a different creature than I was.. And I don't even need to prove it.. I consider myself very fortunate..
Cool discourse you've engaged in here.. So, true.. You are whom you are.. And thats O.K.. If fortune smiles upon you, you may become a different creature too.. or Not.. God is no fool, some are just happy being mere primates.. And thats the way it should be.. Amazing how primates (ones not born again) are so different from non primates.. Must be a spiritual thing.. i.e. the essence of the spirit..
This is no flame because I fully know where you are coming from.. I say, "BE all you can be".. in whatever state you find yourself.. primate or non primate.. because you are either one or the other.. You can't be both.. (in my experience)..
Thank you so much for your engaging testimony, dear hosepipe!
Where you hear of resurrection what is it that you think it is in your mind understnding that is happening?
I do not even need to believe in God either, it's a given for me. Not a man coming back from the dead though. As I've always said, if I wake up tomorrow believing differently, fine, that's the way God wants it.
I like the way you use the word primate...very subtle.
A man died on the cross, and came back to life, and ascended into heaven intact. Please correct me if wrong.
I know ya'll know what real 'evidence' would mean.
If there were claims of something like that today (and there are many, many incredible claims these days), what would you require to believe it to be true?
1st hand reports by eye-witnesses written down within a short time of when it happened. No more than a few years, tops. 2nd hand sources like Josephus ("People say this happened before I was born") wouldn't be considered proof.
Interestingly, you don't apply that level of logic to the Jesus story, tho.
Well, to each their own, I guess.
Not to mention, even first-hand reports many times are not proof of truth. Unless you believe in the Alien Abductions, stories of a missle shooting down that jetliner that crashed, 9/11 was caused by Bush, and on, and on.
I was raised Roman Catholic. But it was you folks, saying things like this that I know to be untrue ("Stories written down 30+ years after the events are proof that it happened!"), that drove me away from Christianity entirely.
So you have to believe it to believe it?
The “ears to hear” are gifts from God which are not given to everyone. Jesus often said ”If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”
Believing is how one reacts when he hears Him – does he receive Him or refuse Him?
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. – John 6:65
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. – John 1:12-13
And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. – John 12:47
The apostles sincerely believed that Jesus appeared to them, resurrected. Sincerity, of course, does not make their belief true, but it does mean they were not intentionally lying about what they had seen. Not one of them recanted his belief, despite extreme persecution and death (we surely would have heard about it if one had). Put another way, liars make poor martyrs.
The teaching about Jesus' resurrection and divinity was present almost immediately after the events occurred. Scholars identify several instances where oral traditions have been copied into the writings which later comprised the New Testament. These include carefully constructed creeds, hymns, sermon summaries, and poetry. This is significant because the oral tradition had to exist prior to the New Testament writings in order for the New Testament authors to include them. This takes us back to some of the earliest teachings of the Christian church.
For example, 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 contains a very early creed attesting to Jesus' resurrection and appearances to the disciples and James, His skeptical brother. The date of origin for this creed is probably within five years of Jesus' crucifixion. Here's how the dating works: Jesus' crucifixion is dated A.D.30 by most scholars. Paul’s conversion is dated around A.D. 31-33. Paul goes away for three years, then visits Peter and James in Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18-19). Most scholars believe Paul received the creed at this time. The other option is that Paul received the creed in Damascus just after his conversion (three years earlier).
Either way, Paul probably received the creed within 2 to 5 years of Jesus’ crucifixion (which places the origin of the creed even earlier). At the very latest, we have source material that dates within two decades of the event of Jesus’ resurrection (1 Corinthians is dated in the early 50s A.D.).
Dean John Rodgers of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, speaking of this creed, said, “This is the sort of data that historians of antiquity drool over.” “Who Was Jesus?” Time magazine, Aug. 15, 1988, 41.
The point of all this is that the apostles were publically teaching their eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus very, very early. The accounts are no less reliable because someone else wrote them down several decades later. Something turned these scared followers of an executed carpenter into bold evangelists willing to spread their message on pain of death.
Jesus had a Body of Flesh and Blood that was Crucified he died a physical death, but when resurrected he had a Body of Flesh and Bone!
We live in a corporal body subject to the Laws of this dimension!
Have you studies the New Testament? Jesus lives in an eternal place and the body never dies nor is subject to the elements here as we are!
1 Tim 3
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Still I wonder that stuartcr classifies God among elves and fairies, etc. ... How do people manage to "get locked into such a box?" All I want to say to them is: Why not try your eyes? Why not listen to the promptings of Spirit? As Alamo-Girl testifies, faith is a gift. Yet if we ask, we receive: God is not stingy!
???
That's all fine, but I just am not capable of believing it. My ability to believe these sorts of things stops at God. That's it, that's all I believe...one God for all men and for all things....past, present, and future. Not a man, never was, and won't be. I believe He has a plan for all things, and we aren't capable of comprehending it. Whatever happens, is His doing, since He created it, and knows what will happen. Some of us are born good/lucky, some aren't, some in between. I do not know why, and I have no need to know. I'm here for 80 or so years, then...???? I hope it's what most people call heaven. Either way, it ain't my call. I just thank God daily for making me the way I am, for what I have, the people I love, and for not making me one of the bad/unlucky ones.
I won't be answering any more for a few days.
I do not classify God among fairies and elves...what I said, was that there existence, is to me, as impossible as a man coming back from the dead.
God made me the way I am...just as He did all of us.
This can help answer your questions/doubts about the resurrection of the Lord.
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/fales.html
I may be able to that answer question somewhat.. since I was where Stuart seems to be at one time.. It can be a reaction to christian superstition or superstition in general.. There is a good deal of that you know.. I like the term synthetic christianity to explain that.. however accurate that is I don't know.. Works for me, and I dont have to deal with nonsense..
The elves and fairy comment was a metaphorical canard of other things I suppose.. A canard to reflect specific ones.. with no inclination to approach debate on any of them..
Could be Stuart is on the spiritual level of Joseph Campbell.. at least sometimes.. If thats who he is, then thats who he is..
Strange that its not what you believe at all, its whom you are.. Many many "christians" don't know that either.. Its whom you are that determines what you will believe, not the other way around.. Also true that people that believe nothing of substance will believe anything whether it has substance or not.. Primates are strange creatures..
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.