All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
Videos

William Lane Craig on whether there were guards at the tomb of Jesus

8 Comments

I was sort of playing around in the John Ankerberg channel on YouTube looking at all the stuff they’ve posting and I found some Bill Craig videos. And suddenly I found a video that I thought was worth posting. The question from John Ankerberg was on whether there were guards at the tomb described in Matthew.

Now, everybody who has seen a Bill Craig debate knows that he uses 4 minimal facts in order to infer that the resurrection happened. He chooses these facts because they pass certain historical criteria. For example, he can only uses a fact that is present in early sources, and in multiple sources. It also helps if the reported fact is embarrassing to the early church or the message they were trying to get accepted by other people. Anything reported by an enemy is more likely to be historical. And a fact is less historical if it was used by the early church as an apologetic to defend against opposition from some group. And so on.

So, I thought it would be fun for you to see that there are some facts that you SHOULD NOT USE in your minimal set.

Here’s one that you should not use – the guard at the tomb:

Notice how forthright and honest Craig is? The guard at the tomb is probably toughest thing to defend in the whole New Testament. Why? Because it’s late – Matthew is later than Mark! Because it’s only in one source – Matthew! And because it seems to be an apologetic against the idea that the disciples stole the body – which means most people will say it was invented for that purpose.

So, what do we learn? It means that when you watch all those Craig debates, you have to keep in mind that he isn’t just a pastor sort of using the text like a pastor would. He had to do a PhD to find out which verses are more and less strongly historical based on the normal criteria that historians use on historical biographies. No one is treating the New Testament any differently than any other book when you argue in a debate. He only uses the parts that are the strongest, and that’s why he’s always winning these debates. If he had to defend the guard at the tomb, he’d have a much tougher job! Whereas something like the crucifixion is admitted by every single scholar across the board, even the atheists.

Sometimes, it’s fun to explain to non-Christians how you argue for the resurrection by contrasting a solid fact, like the appearances, which are in 1 Cor 15:3-7, and the guard at the tomb, which is only in Matthew. I think they think that we are doing faith, when we are really doing history, then trusting in what the historical investigation reveals.

News

Global warming supporter James Cameron backs out of debate

2 Comments

Here’s a letter from one of the people who wanted to debate Cameron. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Cameron said was itching to debate the issue and show skeptical journalists and scientists that they were wrong.

“I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads,” he said in an interview.

Well, a few weeks ago Mr. Cameron seemed to honor his word.

His representatives contacted myself and two other well known skeptics, Marc Morano of the Climate Depot website and Andrew Breitbart, the new media entrepreneur.

Mr. Cameron was attending the AREDAY environmental conference in Aspen Colorado 19-22 August. He wanted the conference to end with a debate on climate change. Cameron would be flanked with two scientists. It would be 90 minutes long. It would be streamed live on the internet.

They hoped the debate would attract a lot of media coverage.

“We are delighted to have Fox News, Newsmax, The Washington Times and anyone else you’d like. The more the better,” one of James Cameron’s organizers said in an email.

It looked like James Cameron really was a man of his word who would get to take on the skeptics he felt were so endangering humanity.

Everyone on our side agreed with their conditions. The debate was even listed on the AREDAY agenda.

But then as the debate approached James Cameron’s side started changing the rules.

They wanted to change their team. We agreed.

They wanted to change the format to less of a debate—to “a roundtable”. We agreed.

Then they wanted to ban our cameras from the debate. We could have access to their footage. We agreed.

Bizarrely, for a brief while, the worlds most successful film maker suggested that no cameras should be allowed-that sound only should be recorded. We agreed

Then finally James Cameron, who so publicly announced that he “wanted to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out,” decided to ban the media from the shoot out.

He even wanted to ban the public. The debate/roundtable would only be open to those who attended the conference.

No media would be allowed and there would be no streaming on the internet.  No one would be allowed to record it in any way.

We all agreed to that.

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an email that Mr. “shoot it out ” Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was cancelled.

I think this should give anyone who believes in global warming because of Al Gore and James Cameron pause. If they won’t debate (Al Gore ducked out of a debate, as well), then why should you believe them? Isn’t it a good idea to be open-minded when searching for truth – to listen to experts on both sides? One of the reasons why Christians like being Christians so much these days is because we have all of these amazing debaters with multiple-PhDs. Isn’t it better to hold your opinions a bit more humbly and to be aware of what the other side can say against your side?

News

Palin-endorsed tea party candidate up 51-49 in Alaska

4 Comments

Story here.

Excerpt:

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski fought to save her job Wednesday, locked in a stunningly tight Republican primary race against a political novice backed by Sarah Palin and tea party activists. The outlook was far brighter for another incumbent, Sen. John McCain, who won handily in Arizona.

With 98 percent of election day precincts counted, Murkowski trailed Joe Miller by 1,960 votes out of more than 91,000 counted. The race was too close to call, with as many as 16,000 absentee votes and an undetermined number of provisional or questioned ballots, remaining to be counted starting on Aug. 31.

Murkowski would be the seventh incumbent — and fourth Republican — to lose in a year in which the tea party has scored huge victories in GOP Senate primaries and voters have shown a willingness to punish Republicans and a handful of Democrats with ties to Washington and party leadership. Miller is a Gulf War veteran and self-described “constitutional conservative.”

It also was an outsider’s night in Florida’s GOP primary for governor, with big-spending upstart Rick Scott toppling veteran insider Bill McCollum, the state’s attorney general who had the support of national party chiefs.

Lisa Murkowski is pro-abortion and fairly moderate.

And of course we won in Florida, but there the establishment Republican was not as bad. Still – new blood means new ideas. It will encourage the Republicans to keep doing what they’re doing and to be bold.