As I studied history at teacher training college (years back though) subjects like discussed in this blog have always interested me. I can understand though why many Christians do not bother so much about apologetics in general and things like historical criteria etc. in particular. Most of it is rather complicated and admittedly it tires me sometimes as well. But can we do without? I think not. I simply know. We must at times delve deep and get to the bottom of good arguments to defend our position when it comes to the historical claims of the Christian faith.
Have you ever heard Gary Habermas, Michael Licona or William Lane Craig defend the resurrection of Jesus as the best explanation for the “minimal facts” about Jesus? The lists of minimal facts that they use are typically agreed to by their opponents during the debates.
For example, in his debate with Bart Ehrman, Craig was able to quote Ehrman’s own writings where he agreed that all four facts were probably true.
Now in his early published work Dr. Ehrman expressed skepticism about these facts. He insisted that we cannot really affirm these facts.
[…]Dr. Ehrman has himself come to re-think his position on these issues. Inconsistencies in the details notwithstanding, he now recognizes that we have “solid traditions,” not only for Jesus’ burial, but also for the women’s discovery of the empty tomb, and therefore, he says, we can conclude with “some certainty” that Jesus was in fact…
View original post 1.373 woorden meer