William Lane Craig, John Dominic Crossan debate the resurrection of Jesus (HIGH QUALITY)

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 22 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 20

  • @BlugubriousMusic
    @BlugubriousMusic 8 місяців тому +2

    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.

  • @mattsawmiller3277
    @mattsawmiller3277 8 місяців тому +4

    This is my kind of material. Love listening to WLC, and apologetics in general.

    • @oldpossum57
      @oldpossum57 2 місяці тому

      W.L. C. is a laughing stock. There is a good reason that no real university will give him a position in their theology departments, so that he has to take a position at Biola, a Bible college where one has to be a creationist to get a job.

  • @NatalieLoftinBellofficial
    @NatalieLoftinBellofficial 8 місяців тому +1

    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.

  • @dylangoldman2310
    @dylangoldman2310 7 місяців тому +3

    So this guy calls himself a Christian but denies the resurrection and calls God "She"?? 👀

  • @ofmiceandmandrakes1005
    @ofmiceandmandrakes1005 17 днів тому

    Dr. Crossin is like the poor grandfather that still teaches his egg head grandson a lesson despite the grandsons "elite" education

  • @PotemkinDogpack
    @PotemkinDogpack 7 місяців тому +2

    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.

  • @fffantasticboom
    @fffantasticboom  8 місяців тому

    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.