William Lane Craig, John Dominic Crossan debate the resurrection of Jesus (HIGH QUALITY)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- I’m posting this audio because hearing it in the late 90s was very special to me. I can’t find a recording of it anywhere except for the terrible sounding one on RUclips. And yeah, I cut some of the non-essential parts. While I was ripping it, I decided to add pics. Anyway, here’s Craig’s argument for his first contention, with each of the four evidences followed by its own evidences. It is an inference to the best explanation argument. I’m leaving off a discussion of the second contention because I doubt very many people think one should knowingly devote themselves to an untruth. That argument seems very Crossan-specific.
Craig: Jesus rose from the dead is the best explanation for the following four historical facts:
1: Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb he owned.
a. attested in the old source quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (i.e. belief in his burial is extremely old, without time to arise from legendary accumulation)
b. attested in Mark’s source material, recorded in Mark 15 (ditto)
c. Joseph of Arimathea is said to have been a member of the Sanhedrin (In addition to the problem of inventing such a public person, the early Christians were unlikely to have invented a hero figure on the Sanhedrin, given their pivotal role in Jesus’s execution.)
d. the burial story is simple and looks unlike legends, which tend to have fanciful, esoteric elements
e. No competing contemporary burial account exists
2: Jesus’s tomb was discovered empty on the Sunday after his Friday crucifixion.
a. attested by Mark’s old source material
b. implied by the source quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7
c. The story is simple and lacks signs of legendary accumulation
d. it is highly unlikely that, were the story to be a fabrication, women would have been invented as the discoverers of the tomb.
e. The competing explanation of contemporary witnesses [recorded because it was a well known objection to Christianity], that the body had been stolen, presupposes that the tomb was empty.
3: Individuals and groups experienced what they perceived to be a living, bodily resurrected Jesus on multiple occasions.
a. The old tradition quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 gives a list of witnesses, some by name, and suggests that they are available for questioning.
b. Recorded attestation by no fewer than four more independent sources (M, L, John, and Paul himself, in addition to the 1 Cor 15 source, in addition to its implication by Mark’s source)
c. Superfluous signs of historical accuracy
d. the conversion of Jesus’s brother, James, who probably was previously an unbeliever (his unbelief is recorded and “scores high” on the criterion of embarrassment)
4: Many 1st century Jews, all at the same time, became absolutely convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead despite every religious, social and safety predisposition to the contrary.
Jesus’s death would have precluded his being the Messiah. His condemnation as a heretic would have precluded his being the Messiah, or even a sympathetic character. Given Deut 21:22-23, merely his death on a cross would have precluded these, as well. His execution as an enemy of Rome would have made him a very unsavory, even dangerous, figure to defend (esp with the way the NT writers keep calling him “The LORD”, which was heretical to non-Christian Jews given that it was a reference to the name YaHWeH, and EXCEPTIONALLY dangerous as a proclamation around representatives of Rome. Remember that allegiance to the emperor was EVERYTHING. Exhibiting non-allegiance to the emperor was the easiest way to get killed. The fact that Jesus had been executed for exactly that meant that there was also probably less room for misunderstanding…”I didn’t mean it like that” might have not worked in this case). Further, the Old Testament speaks only of a general resurrection at the end of the world, not that one man would rise ahead of everyone.
So anyone among them who thought they COULD be wrong about the conclusion (“Maybe I hallucinated” “Maybe I’m wrong because…”) had every motivation to make sure. “Jesus is Lord” wasn’t something you’d go around saying, especially around Rome, if you weren’t CONVINCED. Keep in mind that, regarding their experiences of him appearing to them, the phenomenon of hallucinations was well known, including when under emotional strain. And as NT Wright has said, a vision of a dead person (usually in a dream), was taken as proof that the person was DEAD…living people don’t appear to people. But the early Christians ran around literally saying that Jesus was ALIVE again. That’s exactly what “resurrection” meant in Jewish thought.
It's a puzzling claim, particularly for so many people to suddenly be making, particularly given all that was at risk by making that claim.
------------
1:32:49 is underrated
#historicaljesus #williamlanecraig #johndominiccrossan #debate
This is my kind of material. Love listening to WLC, and apologetics in general.
So this guy calls himself a Christian but denies the resurrection and calls God "She"?? 👀
This debate is phenomenal in every way. It is very encouraging to listen to respectful, healthy communication of this kind. I always enjoy WLC’s passion while speaking and what Dr Crosson said about “through faith they saw the permanent supernatural” & “God never forces faith” permeated my mind. This also inspired me to do some more of my own research & reflection. I’m really glad you posted this.
I usually come from a sadistic place to feel bad about my mediocre guitar playing. You happen to have posted something in a different realm here. Surprised me. Goodly.
Excellent :)
I think you’ve misrepresented the moment at 49:00. Craig’s point is that, on Crossan’s “Christ of Faith” “Jesus of History” bifurcation, the “Christ of Faith” isn’t shaped and corrected by actual historical data. The COF is merely an idea with no requirement of being based in the historical Jesus. Thus there’s no corrective to what one’s Christ of Faith can be. On what grounds can one object to anyone’s claims about Jesus if NOT that it doesn’t cohere with history? It’s a perfectly fine response, and not one bit of a misrepresentation of Crossan’s view. It draws out a ramification of Crossan’s view.
I think some of the rest of your post is inaccurate. But I DO look forward to doing more guitar stuff. :) let me know anything I should talk about.
Just in time for Easter. Thank you for the upload! A fascinating conversation between Crossan and Craig. It's a pity Buckley was such a poor moderator, making the discussion section a 2-on-1 debate with no moderator.