the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus (debate)
I attended a debate at Northwest Missouri State University on March 18th. The premise; did Jesus rise from the dead? This debate involved William Lane Craig and Richard Carrier. I had really hoped for a good debate. I wanted to leave with something to think about. Something that would require me to research and dig deep to fully understand. I must say I was disappointed. Now, my disappointment was not with Craig rather with Carrier. I have often hoped somebody would give Craig a run for his money.
I hoped someone would make a point that he had trouble explaining or might even say, “Great point, I will have to look into that”. No, that is not what I heard. Rather, a commercial for Carriers two books and a crazy concoction that everybody in the early Christian church hallucinated and therefore are not credible, interrupted and followed up by more commercials for his books. Basically, Carrier wants to be an atheist so he is. That pretty much sums him up. The funny thing is many times I have heard it said that Christians naively believe what they want. Christians are ignorant to blindly believe as they do. I think all people believe what they want and then look for proof. Carrier needs to keep looking!
Here is a link to the debate on youtube ….
So you don’t believe New Testament stories of people having dreams and thinking a real angel had appeared in a dream?
Or New Testament stories of Peter having visions of unclean food?
Or New Testament stories of Paul having a vision of a man from Macedonia and believing that a real man from Macedonia teleported over from Greece to appear in Paul’s vision?
And you don’t believe New Testament stories of Stephen standing in Jerusalem and claiming he could see the Son of Man in Heaven?
I do believe all of that. A more accurate version of the way you put it but I do believe. The stories you speak of are not all the same. Some are dreams some are visions which are different. Regardless of their differences it is not impossible to for an Almighty God to choose these forms to speak to people. The flaw you and Carrier have is similar to the, which came first the chicken or the egg debate. That area of the world was prone to believing visions and such were relatively common. Carrier assumes they are hallucinations and just mind games created by the desire to want to believe. I believe that Almighty God understood the people of that time and spoke to them in a very real but unmistakable way. Neither of us can prove the other wrong.
You can sit there in your arrogance and claim common sense all you want. The problem with that is you are ignorant. Now before you get upset I am ignorant and very aware of that as well. I don’t understand everything. I do however get one thing. The evidence that there is a God is overwhelming. If there is a God and he created everything, he can do whatever he wants. Years ago when it was brought to our attention that the earth revolved around the sun it did not make sense. If you stand outside early in the morning the sun will come up from the east and throughout the day move across the sky until it eventually settles in the west only to rise again from the east the next morning. It would appear that the sun revolves around the earth. From an ignorant common perspective that would appear correct. With the help of technology we now know that is not true. As technology grows we understand more and more.
The issue you have with God, science and everything in it was created by him which means he is not held to it. Time, matter and space he can supersede. So these crazy outlandish things that you laugh at are all within the realm of a very capable God speaking to a people in a way they can understand. In some respects, you and I are not that different. We both choose to believe. Neither of us can prove our case scientifically which means we need faith to believe. My issue with Carrier and those who choose to believe in the theory of evolution or whatever you choose to believe in would be where in science do you offer faith? From what I know of science one deals with facts only and calls it a theory until proven. Faith allows for faith. How do you convince yourself to believe what you believe knowing there is no place for faith? Atheism is a religion where the participants refuse to believe it is a religion.
Yes we can debate this till the ends of the earth. The real difference is a personal relationship with Jesus. Christians have that and that is what makes me believe. My personality makes me strive to learn more. I find it interesting to see how God has woven his creation together. My enjoyment of these debates does not come from winning but rather learning. I want to have my faith challenged. I believe that is good for me. Carrier did not do that. Watch the debate. It is pretty evident why I say that.
I typically do not respond to “debate” issues. In my 30 years of ministry I have witnessed little, if any, fruit resulting from all the back and forth. However, I will say this and leave it at that: I try to fashion my witness to that of Jesus. You will notice that He never debated anyone. He revealed their sin to them and left them with the option to repent. And I’m sure there were atheists around in those days as well. You will also notice that He never chased anyone down to try and convince them that He was indeed the Son of God. No, He told them the truth and if they rejected it He simply let them walk away and went about His business. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the Holy Spirit’s responsibility to convict people of their sin? Yes. it is. My responsibility is to share the truth with them. It’s up to them as to how they choose to respond. I refuse to argue with anyone. The devil loves it and I have found it to be a huge waste of time. They are either going to believe or they’re not. The believer’s road is the narrow road, right? It’s not that I don’t love them, I do. But after they have heard the Gospel it’s between them and the Holy Spirit. I continue to go about my Father’s business. As did my Savior.
I will have to disagree with you on this one Rich. First let’s define a debate. A debate is where two or more individuals express their opinions on a specific subject. There is usually an opening session followed by rebuttals. This is not meant to be a fight or argument. This can turn into that as a result of one not being able to control ones emotions. I believe this is extremely beneficial when an audience is present. Most of these debates take place a Universities across the country and will help educate people.
As for Jesus, he did debate, all the time. He started with teaching in the synagogue. There the elders marveled at his teachings. What he taught was was very different than the law that they taught. How many times did Jesus say you don’t be like the Pharisees. How many times did he say “You have been told this but I say do this”. Every time a religious leader questioned what he was doing he always rebutted their question with an explanation of why he was doing this. In fact numerous times he would preach a parable and not explain it or only explain it to those who asked for an explanation but he always responded to those who challenged him.
Any debate that gets out of hand or causes anger is wrong. Not because of the debate but rather because of what the person allowed to happen as a result. Many people go to these debates with questions. William Lane Craig’s goal is to give answers. Watch the link I at the bottom of this original post. There are 10 short excerpts from you tube, then let me know what you think.
Alright, I knew it. I should have known better than contribute to this discussion. I’ve been down this path so many times that you would think I’d know exactly where the chuckholes were. But, because I am such a lovable fuzzball I thought I would expose my sentiments. Bad idea. I understand what you’re saying, but I respectfully disagree with your evaluation of whether or not Jesus debated anyone. He taught, He answered questions, yes. I do not consider that a debate. And how many times did He answer their question and then walk away? I could only handle watching 2 segments of the debate. Not my cup of tea, so to speak. So who is wrong here, you or me? Neither, my brother. We see things differently. No big deal. It bears no effect on our love, or our faith, in the Lord Jesus or for one another. I have one last question and then my participation is closed; did this debate have any effect on the atheist? Did he see the light and ask Jesus to be his Lord and Savior? No, he did not. And he most likely never will. His mind is already made up. I’ll close my case. Jesus must be accepted by faith, not debate. If one were debated into faith, one can be debated out of it. If you can be talked into something you can most certainly be talked out of it by a better orator. You enjoy debate, fine, have fun. Me? I’m just an “old fashioned” believer. If Jesus said it, I believe it. I wasn’t “talked into” faith in Jesus because I was made to understand everything. Heck, none of it made sense at first. There is an inner witness to believe. And I do, whether it makes sense or not. If people are coming to faith in Jesus because of these debates then Godspeed to the process. But I would be interested to know how many came to Christ because of this debate. Okay, I participated. Now I’m done. Time to go about what He’s called me to do. I love you. You know that.
I am glad you did contribute. You should have watched more than just two and that may have helped you. Anyway, no, as far as I know the atheist did not get saved. He did however here the word and what does the word not do? Turn away void. The real issue is with the audience. It is not a matter of convincing someone to believe in God. If you read my initial post again I said “I think all people believe what they want and then look for proof.” Some people like you believe and don’t care about the proof. That is fine but as you stated we are different and this is not your cup of tea. I am sure you are not alone.
My only beef with that is for years I feel as if the church ignored science and let the atheists spew incorrect information to everyone who attended school. This has caused a lack of interest in God and church thus causing a decline in church attendance once a young man or woman leaves home for college. I believe there is a place for this and wish everyday pastors and church goers were more interested in learning these things so when a young man has his faith questioned he knows what to say. Jesus answered and walked away because he knew what to say and the debate was over. Many times he did not just walk away. Read these sections of scripture and tell me what you think.
1. In Luke 5:21-26, Jesus defended His authority to forgive sin. Which is easier? To forgive sin or to tell this paralyzed man to stand up, pick up your mat, and walk?
2. In Luke 5:33-39, Jesus defended His authority to ignore the many Jewish religious rules because He is Israel’s bridegroom and, as such, He had authority to present an entirely new approach to worship. When Jesus is present, it is time, not to fast and pray, but to be joyous.
3. In Luke 6:1-5, Jesus debated the Jewish traditional rules for the use of the Sabbath day because, as “the Son of man,” (a term for deity) Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath. If it was lawful for David and his men, in a time of need, to eat consecrated bread from the altar, was it wrong for Jesus and His disciples to pick some grains of wheat to eat on the Sabbath, since they, too, were busy doing God’s work?
4. In Luke 11:14-23, Jesus defended his authority to cast out demons as proof that God’s kingdom had come to the Jews.
5. In Luke 20:1-8, Jesus defended His authority to cleanse the temple as the Son of God by asking the Jews where John the Baptist received his authority for his message. Sometimes the best answer to a question is to ask a question.
6. In Luke 20:27-39, Jesus defended correct teaching about the resurrection of the godly on the basis of one verse of Scripture that He interpreted literally (Exodus 3:6). Moses spoke of God as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
How cool are you? And I mean that sincerely. I admire you and honor your convictions. And I support them as well. Those are good scriptures, but I see them not as a debate but Jesus merely preaching the gospel and addressing the situation with truth from the hip. Maybe that is a debate, I don’t know. And maybe I’m viewing the car from the rear while you are describing it from the front. Maybe it is the same car from a different perspective? Let’s make a deal; you debate and I’ll sit behind you and support you 100%. And I mean that, too! I love you.