[.ca] Jesus' Resurrection: Fact Or Figment?: A Debate Between ... (ISBN 0830815694)

A Great Debate:
Comparing "Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment" with the similar book "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up", I found that the former was a much better read. Both debaters in "Jesus' Resurrection" give a clear and concise outline of their main points and the essays provided are representative of both sides. In evaluating the debate and essays, being as objective as one can be, I believe that a better case was given for the "Resurrection Hypothesis" compared to the "Hallucination Hypothesis". Ludemann and company rely on unfounded presuppositions. Namely, a late dating of Mark's Gospel, improper exegesis of 1 Cor. 15, and a dogmatic denial of miracles. Obviously this topic is founded on the beliefs in God and miracles. It would probably have been more appropriate to have a debate on the existence of God and the plausibility of miracles since liberal theologians seem to deny their existence. Nonetheless, the reader profits from reading the book through gaining an understanding of two major systems of belief.

No contest, Craig shows strong case:
While only a fifth of this book involves the actual debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann, it was the highlight of a book that also includes articles from others commenting on the points made in the debate. Unfortunately, I didn't feel Lundemann was on the same page as Craig, who laid out a clear and concise plan of why the historical resurrection is true. At the time of the debate, Ludemann apparently considered himself to be a Christian, though he has apparently changed his mind since this debate and now declares himself a nonbeliever. Ludemann has a theory (hallucination) that I just don't see how everything matches up. Ludemann does not seem to give an adequate explanation to many important points made by Craig. Except for a disconnect on the actual debate, though, the book is worth a read for those wanting two sides to the issue of Christianity's most important claim.

Creates reasonable doubt:
This is an excellent format to get to the essence of the matter about Jesus Resurrection being literal and physical or a myth. I think that everyone did a good job in the book. Depending on your viewpoint coming in, you will probably grasp onto different elements. It is my opinion that when absolute truth claims are made ,that the burden of proof remains with the parties making these claims. After reading this book, it really seems that there is a reasonable doubt concerning the resurrection of Jesus. If you really want to examine this crucial event for Christianity in more detail then this book is an excellent way to do that.

Craig wins, is not questioned on highly dubious propositions:
This book was a big disappointment for me as I do not believe in the resurrection. I, however liked the way William Lane Craig fleshed out his points, he was very concise and got to the heart of the matter immediately. Ludemann on the other hand, only responded to two or three of Craig's fifteen points in support of the burial, empty tomb, and post mortem appearances of Jesus. This book does a lot to bolster the faith of the more credulous christians, yet Dr. Craig does not to attempt to justify some of his more dubious claims. For example Dr. Craig claims there are four pieces of evidence that establish the historicity of the burial: 1."Jesus' burial is attested in the very early information handed down by Paul"(1Cor.15:3-5). This early christian creed does not put the burial of Jesus in a time place or setting, rather it is a creed, something in which this congregation had faith. 2."The burial is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel". Scholars have deduced that there may in fact have been an ancient source document "Q". This theory emerged to explain much of the material that Matthew and Luke have in common. (word for word in many cases) This source document however, contains sayings only and does not contain the hotly contested passion narrative. Dr. Craig offers no support to his claim of very old source material. Of the empty tomb: 1."The empty tomb story is part of very old source material used by Mark." Once again, what this ancient source material consists of Dr. Craig fails to enlighten us. 2."The old information by Paul in 1 Corinthians implies the empty tomb" Again there are several ways in which this passage can be taken, a literal physical resurrection or a spiritual one (which was a common thing in those times) 3."The story is simple and lacks signs of legendary embellishment" While true, mere simplicity does not have to imply authenticity. 4."Women's testimony was worthless in first century Palestine, counting in favor of the women discovering the empty tomb" We do not know the intentions of Mark when he made women discover the tomb. All of the male disciples had abandonded Jesus by that time so he needed someone to go to the tomb. Mark may not have meant for his story to be taken literally, therefore it would not have mattered who discovered the tomb. 5."The earliest Jewish allegation that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus shows that the body was missing from the tomb" This is the worst of all of Craig's arguments as it is completly circular. Where does he get this information? From Josephus? Tacitus? Paul? No, he gets it in one line from the gospel of Matthew. No other sources attest to this debate which supposedly raged on in the first century. Dr. Craig cannot take one line from the book of Matthew and use it to construct a fictional point of contention...

Craig Buries Ludemann, Goulder, and Hoover...:
Established Fact #5: On the day this book was published, the Resurrection theories of Gerd Ludemann, Michael Goulder, and Roy Hoover were laid to rest by William Lane Craig. Ludemann, Goulder and Hoover tried their best to attack Dr. Craig's argument, but they failed miserably. Dr. CRAIG ANSWERED EVERY SINGLE CRITICISM THAT THEY HAD. After reading Dr. Craig's final response, there is no question who had the better theory. This was an excellent debate. Read it. (All of it!)