Did Jesus Die on the Cross? Part 2: Finishing Off Geisler’s Case
It is springtime! The sky is blue, and the sun is shining again here in the great and green Northwest. Every year Easter brings life back into me. I feel born again, inspired and energized to once again attack the beast (i.e. Christianity/religion/superstition). I might be tilting at a windmill, but I’m delighted to be back … Did Jesus Die on the Cross? Part 2: Finishing Off Geisler’s Case
Did Jesus Die on the Cross? Part 1: Geisler’s Case
According to the Christian philosopher Dr. Norman Geisler: Before we [i.e. Christian believers] can show that Jesus rose from the dead, we need to show that he really did die. (When Skeptics Ask, p.120) William Lane Craig does not understand this basic principle concerning the alleged resurrection of Jesus, and as a result his case for … Did Jesus Die on the Cross? Part 1: Geisler’s Case
The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry – Part 1
In this series I will discuss a recently published book called The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry (hereafter: TRACI). It is not my intention to DO a critical inquiry into the (alleged) resurrection of Jesus in these posts. Rather, I will be describing and commenting on the efforts of Michael J. Alter, the author of TRACI, to … The Resurrection: A Critical Inquiry – Part 1
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 15
Here is my main objection to William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus: In order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But in most of William Craig’s various books, articles, and debates, he simply ignores this issue. He makes no serious attempt … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 15
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 14
Here is my main objection to William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus: In order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But in most of William Craig’s various books, articles, and debates, he simply ignores this issue. He makes no serious attempt … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 14
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 13
In Part 10, I argued that Robert Funk was not as certain about Jesus’ death on the cross as Craig claims, and I pointed out that three of the seven groundrules proposed by Funk for investigation of the historical Jesus are skeptical in nature, showing that Funk has a generally skeptical view of the historical Jesus. … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 13
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 12
Here is my main objection to William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus: It is not possible for a person to rise from the dead until AFTER that person has actually died. Thus, in order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 12
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 11
Here is my main objection to William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus: It is not possible for a person to rise from the dead until AFTER that person has actually died. Thus, in order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 11
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 10
Here is my main objection to William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus: It is not possible for a person to rise from the dead until AFTER that person has actually died. Thus, in order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 10
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 9
I have finished my discussion of Luke Timothy Johnson’s views on the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and I will begin my discussion of Robert Funk’s views on the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in the next post, after a brief review here of the CONTEXT of this series of posts (i.e. my … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 9