M
MadeUpName2
Guest
If you don’t mind my asking, which debate is this? Who are the people debating?
- Status
R
rosejmj
Guest
Here is the link. It is kind of old- from 1980s, but someone recommended it to me
M
MadeUpName2
Guest
Thanks.
Yeah, Craig is a good source on the Resurrection. Very dry, especially as he got older, but extremely solid from a factual standpoint. There are more recent ones that he did. Licona, Habermas, and N.T. Wright also discuss the Resurrection, with varying degrees of sophistication.
There are basically two types of debates about the Resurrection. The first type is about whether God exists and then, after that, whether God raised Jesus from the dead. That’s why Craig spends so much time in the debate you posted discussing topics like the Big Bang, the basis for objective morality, and so on.
The second type of debate accepts the existence of God as a starting point, but dives much deeper into the historical evidence for the Resurrection. Most philosophers believe that this two-step process makes sense, since it’s easier to show that God raised Jesus from the dead if you already believe that there’s good philosophical or scientific evidence for God.
(And then there are books, which dive deeper debates do. I can think of a couple about the Resurrection, depending on your background.)
So the first issue is whether you believe there’s good evidence for God. If you do, it would make sense to watch debates that focus on the Resurrection. If not, then debates like the one you posted – which show how the Resurrection fits into the bigger picture – would be better.
Last edited:
R
rosejmj
Guest
I think I need more evidence for the Resurrection than for the existence of God. Thank you for the information. I will look into it
M
MadeUpName2
Guest
As always, a disclaimer: I am not a theologian [EDIT: or a Catholic!]; just a person interested in the Resurrection argument.
That said…
Here are some debates specifically about the Resurrection, with better picture quality:
One of the better ones – An older William Lane Craig in a formal debate with James Crossley, a British scholarly critic of the Resurrection:
An informal chat about the Resurrection between Gary Habermas (a Christian) and Antony Flew (basically a deist by the end of his life), who were friends before Flew passed away:
There’s also the Loftus/Wood debate, which gives a simplified version of the Resurrection argument. It’s less detailed than the above, because Wood is a pure philosopher rather than a New Testament historian. I mention it because it’s very clear, watchable, and engaging. But Loftus does a poor job representing the atheist position, so it’s more useful to see the broad strokes of the Christian approach to the Resurrection:
Craig and Ludemann, a German scholarly critic of the Resurrection:
And then there’s Licona and Bart Ehrman, a former Evangelical critic of the Resurrection. I hesitate to post this one for the same reason that I hesitated to post Wood/Loftus above (I don’t much like Licona’s style of presentation.) But some people do like Licona, so here it is:
There are more – Licona’s numerous debates, Craig’s debate with Ehrman, etc – but the ones I posted will give you a broad overview of the issues. Beyond that, there are books that address the Resurrection in greater depth, like Licona and Habermas’s Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (for beginners) all the way up to Licona’s doctoral thesis, freely available online.
Also, if you can find any Resurrection lectures by N.T. Wright, one or two acquaintances have recommended them to me. This is one of the more technical ones:
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
So those would be some resources that specifically focus on the Resurrection debate.
EDIT: Wood and Loftus is probably the easiest to watch and understand of the bunch. It’s a bit one-sided (like Ehrman/Licona), but it’s also simpler. And pretty engaging. Craig, by contrast, is a far less “fun” speaker. But he’s got two PhDs under Hick and Pannenberg, and is probably better qualified to argue about this stuff than anybody alive.
Last edited:
O
openmind77
Guest
Here is a story of a Vishnu follower come back from the dead: https://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/chapter-43/
M
MadeUpName2
Guest
This came up, along with a couple other non-Christian resurrection claims, in exchanges between Gary Habermas and Robert Price:
http://www.garyhabermas.com/article...tud_res_claims_in_non-christian_religions.htm
Basically, Habermas says that the Resurrection survives the critiques that secular critics level against historical miracles better than Yogananda’s account does.
That might not necessarily kill off a Hindu claim on its own, since a Hindu might believe that the Resurrection and Yogananda’s encounter happened. That would be a separate discussion. But the Resurrection is a better established miracle claim than Yogananda’s.
EDIT: To be clear, I myself am not familiar with the Yogananda account. But I know that it’s been discussed in the literature by people who are – hence the cite. That said, it’s probably worth taking a long look at when I have more time, especially if you think Habermas is mistaken in his interpretation of it.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
- Is it reasonable to think that God, if he exists, would allow such a deception to take place? After all we are hardly at fault if God has allowed it.
- Jesus is either a nutcase that had such an effect on his followers that he caused mass hallucinations, or he really was what they said he was. But what he cannot be is a demon. As someone else said, a demon seeks only to destroy and lead astray, but a demon does not have the power to express divine truth, love, and raise people from the dead, and then raise himself from the dead!, unless God himself has allowed it. Thus the question is again, why would God allow something that is counter productive to the message he represents. If God was really like that we would be hopelessly deceived and the teaching “from their fruits you will know them” would be false.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
Hindus have a different metaphysical system to Christians. We have a unique ontological idea of reality. We would have to convince them of that idea first before we could convince them that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Otherwise they will simply interpret and define Jesus according to the beliefs they already hold.
O
openmind77
Guest
Actually, many Hindus don’t have any difficult believing Jesus is a Son of God. Except that they do not believe he is the only unique Son of God (or an Avatar of Vishnu as we call them) . Vishnu is ‘the’ Son and he supposedly descends into a human being periodically to teach/save the world and that makes that human ‘an Avatar’.Yep:
Hindus have a different metaphysical system to Christians. We have a unique ontological idea of reality. We would have to convince them of that idea first before we could convince them that Jesus Christ is the son of God. Otherwise they will simply interpret and define Jesus according to the beliefs they already hold.
In fact some theosophists believe that such an Avatar descends regularly approximately every 2160 years to Earth. The last few being Hermes, Hercules, Rama, Mithra, Krishna, Jesus (in that order) with Jesus being the last one.
Also most Hindus don’t consider the resurrection story that important in deciding whether someone is an Avatar. It seems more like a ‘gut’ feeling that they trust more.
Last edited:
- Status