Category Archives: Commentary

Commentary

MUST-READ: Bill Craig on 1 Corinthians 15 and the empty tomb

3 Comments

The best and earliest evidence for the basic facts of the resurrection are in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. But that early creed, which most historians date to withing 5 years of the crucifixion, does not contain an explicit statement about the empty tomb. The empty tomb is one of the minimal facts in many Christians “minimal facts” cases for the resurrection. Is there a way to argue that the empty tomb is implied by the early creed? Did Paul believe in the empty tomb? Does the concept of resurrection imply an empty tomb?

Here’s an excerpt from the question that was posed to Bill:

First off, you discuss the formula that Paul uses in 1 Cor. 15:3-5, and you claim that it is a very old Christian formula that Paul probably received on his visit to Jerusalem following his conversion. Therefore, you say that this formula can probably be dated back to within five years of Christ’s death. You base your belief that this formula is an old Christian tradition on its “Semitic and non-Pauline characteristics” and on Paul’s claim that this gospel formula is something that he received.

However, in Paul’s epistle to the Galatian (3.11-12, 15-18) he says, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ… But when it pleased God who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter…”

Paul seems to claim that he didn’t receive the gospel which he preached and specifically outlined in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 from man, but from God in some special revelation. Therefore, how do you reconcile your belief that Paul received and consequently preached the old Christian formula of 1 Cor. 15:3-5 with what Paul says in Galatians 3? In addition, what are the Semitic and non-Pauline characteristics that are exhibited in 1 Cor. 15:3-5?

Lastly, you conclude that Paul’s claim that Christ rose “on the third day” is indicative of a physical resurrection and consequently an empty tomb. You say that colloquial usage of the phrase “on the third day” in the formula and within Christian writings is probably “a time indicator for the events of Easter, including the empty tomb, employing the language of the Old Testament concerning God’s acts of deliverance and victory on the third day, perhaps with texts like Jonah 2. 11 and Hos 6. 2 especially in mind.” However, it seems to me that the dating of the resurrection on the third day could also just as easily have been the result of Christ appearing to the disciples (not even necessarily on the third day) and their remembrance numerous claims that He would rise on the third day (e.g. Matt. 12.39-40; 16.21; 17.22-23; 20.17-19; 27.63, etc.). How do you know that the development of the phrase “on the third day” was not the result of many predictions to His disciples and others that He would rise on the third day? Sorry for the long question. I’ve just been studying your arguments for the resurrection, and these are some questions that I can’t seem to resolve.

And you can click here to read Bill’s response. This is a pretty tough question.

I’m inclined to think that Bill will have an answer because I know lots of atheists scholars have a very high opinion of this early creed.

Further study

The top 10 links to help you along with your learning on this issue and related issues.

  1. How every Christian can learn to explain the resurrection of Jesus to others
  2. The earliest source for the minimal facts about the resurrection
  3. The earliest sources for the empty tomb narrative
  4. Who were the first witnesses to the empty tomb?
  5. Did the divinity of Jesus emerge slowly after many years of embellishments?
  6. What about all those other books that the Church left out the Bible?
  7. Assessing Bart Ehrman’s case against the resurrection of Jesus
  8. William Lane Craig debates radical skeptics on the resurrection of Jesus
  9. Did Christianity copy from Buddhism, Mithraism or the myth of Osiris?
  10. Quick overview of N.T. Wright’s case for the resurrection

Or you can listen to my favorite debate on the resurrection.

Commentary

MUST-READ: Follow up post by Michael Egnor on the New Atheism

1 Comment

Remember my last post about the responses of atheist PZ Meyers to Michael Egnor’s eight questions for the New Atheists?

Well, some other “New Atheists” have responded and he decided to write a new post about one of the funniest ones.

The New Atheist in question answers the questions, but first he attacks Egnor for not allowing comments to the blog post, for being Roman Catholic, for being close-minded(?), and so on.

He then writes this:

The only “doctrine” inherent in “New Atheism” is a desire to observe a secular society and evidentialist arguments…Critical thinking is not conclusion and that’s where Egnor gets everything wrong.

In other words, he doesn’t have any answers to the questions!

Lest you think I am kidding, I will show his answers.

First, let’s review the questions:

  1. Why is there anything?
  2. What caused the Universe?
  3. Why is there regularity (Law) in nature?
  4. Of the Four Causes in nature proposed by Aristotle (material, formal, efficient, and final), which of them are real? Do final causes exist?
  5. Why do we have subjective experience, and not merely objective existence?
  6. Why is the human mind intentional, in the technical philosophical sense of aboutness, which is the referral to something besides itself?
  7. Does Moral Law exist in itself, or is it an artifact of nature (natural selection, etc.)
  8. Why is there evil?

And now his answers:

I don’t know. Let’s use the scientific method and critical thinking to continue to try to figure it out and let’s leave religious presuppositions out of policy decisions so we don’t create legal inequality between belivers [sic] and non-believers.

That’s it. He only gave one answer. To all eight questions! He gave the same answer to all eight questions. “I don’t know”. My guess about his “policy” comments is that he is basically concerned that a majority of morality-enabled voters might put legal brakes on his selfish pursuit of happiness. E.g. – by passing laws defending the unborn or laws defending traditional marriage or laws protecting religious liberty, etc.

Anyway, if you want something funny to read, then you should definitely read this post. The funniest stuff is Egnor’s response to the New Atheist, and you have to click through to read that. I guarantee you will fall off your chair laughing. You readers think *I* am snarky and mean. You think *I* make fun of atheists for not being able to ground morality. Ha! Wait till you read Egnor. I’m *nice*.

We all need to get used to dealing with atheists this way. We need to bring their scientific, philosophical and moral deficiencies to the surface for all to see. And we must use questions to do it.

Atheists oppose science and evidence

Theists support science and evidence

Commentary

Jeb Hensarling and Michele Bachmann: who has the best voting record?

2 Comments

You may have heard that two qualified conservatives are running for the 4th highest position in the House of Representatives, Jeb Hensarling and Michele Bachmann. I was reading an article that assessed the relative strengths of each, and I thought it might be fun to see how you can leverage the work of other groups to assess candidates. (This is the way I do it)

Here’s the background:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has the support of many Tea Party supporters for a Republican leadership post, but most leaders of the newly-elected House majority are backing conservative Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas.

Bachmann and Hensarling appear headed for a showdown over the number four spot in the Republican leadership – that of chairman of the House Republican Conference.

And here’s the assessment:

Both candidates have high ratings from conservative organizations.

Hensarling voted 100 percent of the time with the interests of the American Conservative Union in 2009, the same rating earned by Bachmann.

Hensarling has an 89 percent composite conservative rating in the assessment carried out by the National Journal, and a 12 composite liberal score.

National Journal reports he voted more conservative on economic issues than 96 percent of the House and more conservative on social issues than 93 percent of the House. He voted more conservative than 68 percent of the House on foreign policy.

Bachmann does marginally better with conservative votes, according to National Journal, with a 90 percent composite conservative rating and 10 percent liberal composite rating. She has voted more conservative than 92 percent of her colleagues on economic policy, more conservative than 89 percent of colleagues on social policy and more conservative than 75 percent of other House members on foreign policy.

Both get a 0 rating from Americans for Democratic Action for 2009.

The National Right to Life Committee gave both a 100 percent rating for 2010, while NARAL Pro-Choice America gave both a score of 0.

The Family Research Council, a social conservative group that advocates socially conservative policies, such as pro-life policies and opposition to same-sex marriage, gave both Bachmann and Hensarling a score of 100.

Taxpayer advocacy groups also give the two high marks as well. The National Taxpayers Union gave Bachmann an 89 percent rating for 2009. Hensarling upped her by a few points with a 95 percent NTU rating for 2009.

Citizens Against Government Waste, a taxpayer watchdog group focusing on earmarks and other wasteful spending issues, gave Hensarling a 100 percent rating for 2009 (96 percent lifetime rating), slightly surpassing Bachmann’s 99 percent rating (and a 91 percent lifetime rating) with the group that same year.

Evaluated in 2009 by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest pro-business lobby. Bachmann scored 81 percent and Hensarling 83 percent.

Both received A-ratings from the Gun Owners of America in its 2010 candidates’ rating guide.

Although the House in the 111th Congress “almost entirely avoided the issue of immigration,” according to the pro-border enforcement group Federation for American Immigration Reform, it did rate lawmakers for their votes on two immigration-related measures. Bachmann and Hensarling both earned a positive rating.

And on national security issues for 2009-2010, Hensarling earned a 100 percent rating from the Center for Security Policy, a defense and national security think tank, while Bachmann received 87 percent.

Did you know that all those groups analyzed voting records and graded politicians? There are actually even more groups that give ratings based on voter records. I think that this is a much better way to assess candidates, because their voting record is a much more reliable indicator of what they intend to do than their campaign speeches.

So when you are deciding who to vote for, you can always use these ratings to see where people stand, as long as they have a voting record. For example, if you are concerned about government spending and waste, and the choices are Barack Obama and John McCain, you should know that Obama had a rating of 5 and McCain had a rating of 85 in 2008. That’s how you could know what Obama would do as President.

Regarding the Hensarling vs. Bachmann contest, I think either one would be great. They are equally good. Naturally, I prefer Bachmann because of her personal background. Specifically, her decision to quit her job and homeschool her own 5 children, and to welcome 23 foster children into her home. In my opinion, that is decisive.