(fwd) Re: Craig-Price Debate

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

At 01:05 AM 4/19/99 GMT, you wrote:

>------ Forwarded Message ------

>From: "Keith Sims" <sims_keith@hotmail.com>


<snip>


>There were at least two lines of evidence that Craig used which were 

>not addressed by Price in the actual debate. One was the empty tomb 

>and another was the fact that women's testimonies were used in the 

>accounts of the resurrection. There were others that I cannot recall 

>at this time. Essentially, it just seemed to me that Craig had a more 

>substantive case with several lines of evidence, whereas Price 

>stubbornly stuck with only two arguments throughout the entire 

>debate. These arguments were the argument from pagan savior gods and 

>the argument of interpolation. 

>


TILL
In other words, Craig begged the question of the historical accuracy of the
NT documents.  I have yet to debate this issue with a Christian who didn't
constantly beg this same question.  My reaction to this fallacy is to
suggest that we just take a shortcut and go to the passages that clearly say
that Jesus was resurrected, assume that they are historically accurate, and
let that settle the matter.  After all, if Craig or whoever tries to defend
the resurrection is going to assume that the NT documents are accurate in
reporting that there was an empty tomb, postresurrection appearances, etc.,
why not go all the way and just assume that the NT is accurate in reporting
that Jesus rose from the dead?

The fact is that neither Craig nor any other Christian debater can argue
that there was an empty tomb without assuming the accuracy of the NT
documents.  The matter is that simple.  


Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net

• Previous message: Debate
• Next message: A disgusting parable
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]