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
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 8
I have one final objection to raise against Luke Johnson’s use of the “method of convergence”. I have been using the phrase “the devil is in the details” to summarize a number of problems with, or objections to, Johnson’s use of the “method of convergence” to establish some key claims about Jesus. But there are some … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 8
In Defense of Dwindling Probability
One claim involved in the case for the resurrection of Jesus is this: D. Jesus died on the same day he was crucified. The truth of this claim depends on the truth of some prior claims: E. Jesus existed. C. Jesus was crucified. A probability tree diagram can illustrate how claim (D) involves dwindling probability … In Defense of Dwindling Probability
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 7
I have another objection to raise against Luke Johnson’s use of the “method of convergence” to support the reliability of the Gospels or the “historical framework” of the Gospels (emphasis added by me): As I have tried to show, the character of the Gospel narratives does not allow a fully satisfying historical reconstruction of Jesus’ ministry. … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 7