William Lane Craig vs Jamal Badawi Debate (HQ) 5/11
This is the full debate in high quality between Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Jamal Badawi at the University of Illinois from 1997.
Dr. William Lane Craig:
Ph.D. Philosophy, University of Birmingham, England
D. Theol. Theology, Universität München, Germany
Dr. Jamal Badawi:
Ph.D. Economics, Indiana University, United States
……………………………….THE DEBATE……………………………. .
THE CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY
OPENING STATEMENTS: 20 minutes
Part 1-3: Dr. Craig’s Opening Remarks
Part 4-6: Dr. Badawi’s Opening Remarks
REBUTTALS: 12 minutes
Part 7: Dr. Craig Responds
Part 8: Dr. Craig concludes/Dr. Badawi begins Response
Part 9: Dr. Badawi Concludes Response
CLOSING REMARKS: 5 minutes
Part 10: Dr. Craig’s Closing Comments
Part 11: Dr. Badawi’s Closing Comments
Duration : 0:9:34
Posted in docbates
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Indeed. Nor were …
Indeed. Nor were any of them there during the resurrection or when the discovery that Jesus body was missing from the tomb was made.
As there are no othet accounts of these events outside of the gospels it makes you wonder why so many people take them as being absolute fact, supported by eye witness accounts, doesn’t it.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
actually none of …
actually none of the gospel writers were there at the crucifixion and they still wrote about it, so sometimes they just write things as they believe it should have been written.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
You could be right …
You could be right about the editting of John and it does appear that John 21 may have been added later. There is much discontinuity between John and the synoptics as is obvious when you read then. I think Jesus implicitly says things in the synoptics where as he explicitly says them in John and in that sence I do see some continuity. Who have you been reading anyway? It appears that you have done some serious research and I would like to use ur sources since I am doing my doctorate now.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
…cont’d care to …
…cont’d care to avoid contradicting other gospels where possible. The result is a well rounded text that sets out clearly the authors view of Christ’s divinity and message.
While it’s more complete than any other single gospel there are signs that it was written with a narrower objective than the synoptics. All the gospels are guilty of bending facts to some degree to make a point but in John I feel that they would’ve been sacrificed completely if it was felt necessary to convey the message.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
….cont’d The …
….cont’d The source/source documents used by the author of John were different from those used by the synoptic authors. Sometime during the next 50 yrs it was altered/added to by an unknown editor. This editor was something of an intellectual and had very clear views on the nature of Jesus and his message. He altered/added to the original text to make it more clearly support his views and cut out things that were not relevant to his view of what Jesus message was about. He also took ..cont’d
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
… cont’d taken …
… cont’d taken as literal fact. Also, as I’ve mentioned before, to me the intro in John 1 lacks authenticity to me and I understand that the story of the adulteress in John 8 is seen by many scholars as a later addition to the original John text. So in short I have quite a few problems with the authority of this gospel.
No doubt NT scholars could shoot me down, but my opinion is that John was initially written slightly later than the synoptics, possibly in Greece or Asia Minor … cont’d
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
… cont’d author …
… cont’d author of John didn’t actually witness the nativity events and so did not feel comfortable writing them down as fact. I can accept both these answers in principle to account for the silence in John. But I can find no acceptable reasons for the silence in the synoptics on Lazarus. Yes it could be metaphorical but it isn’t really written in that style and it’s placement, right in the middle of ‘real time’ events in Jesus life, suggests to me that the author meant it to be .. cont’d
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
..cont’d
there …
..cont’d
there probably hasn’t been a major systematic editing of the gospels by the church to create a completely unified account of events.
With John though there are more than just minor inconsistencies and I can accept some but not others. For instance, if we assume the nativity events to be true (a big ‘if’), then why does John not include them. One answer might be that he was concerned only with recounting the ministry of Jesus. Another might be that the… cont’d
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Yes there are a few …
Yes there are a few inconsistencies in, and between, the gospels. Some concerning the identities of minor characters, some over the sequence of events. Dawkins and others seem to regard these as evidence that the NT is just a fabrication.
It’s not surprising that different peoples accounts of the same events vary slightly and to me, the fact that these inconsistencies remain in the bible today perhaps lends more authenticity to the NT in some ways because it indicates that …. con’d
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
The other story …
The other story that comes to mind is in Matthew where when Jesus dies, old dead saints are resurrected. This is on shakey ground historically and could also be a metaphorical story used by Matt. The gospels are not historical biographies in the modern sense but many scholars do think that there is a historical core and I think we can get the essence of the historical Jesus and his message through them. This is where the real choice comes- are we going to follow Jesus and his message of love?
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Akaka,
I agree …
Akaka,
I agree with you about the historicity of Lazarus’ resurrection. It could just be a metaphorical story that was used by John to show Jesus’ power but many historians do believe that Jesus did raise people from the dead. See John Meier’s book. Many stories in the gospels may have been changed to fit into the genre of that gospel, like the anointing of Jesus by a woman (John says it was Mary, the others do not). But the essence of the story did not change and they are rooted in history.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
That said, if you …
That said, if you read each of the gospels in isolation, John is in many ways a more rounded text and contains a more complete message than any one single synoptic gospel.
Re; the rise and spread of Xianity, yes it was quite astounding the way in which it took hold right from the 1st few decades AD and continued to grow even in parts of the world where you’d expect strong resisitance. This early growth is all the more impressive when you consider how primitive communications were back then.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I’m not really …
I’m not really questioning the resurrection. That’s attested to in all the gospels but I’m not sure that I can accept the raising of Lazarus as fact. It seems too big of an event in front of too many observers for the other 3gospels to miss it out. It also doesn’t seem to serve any purpose coming so close in time, as it supposedly did, to Jesus own death. Most of my doubts about the gospel accounts are to do with John - it just seems more contrived than the synoptics somehow …..
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
The other miracles …
The other miracles where temporal in their effect but Jesus’ resurrection is eternal. In the Jewish mind as well the resurrection was not to occur until the new age but with Jesus’ resurrection, the early xians pronounced that the new age was upon us now.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
John is more …
John is more spiritual and metaphorical but it is in continuity with the synoptics and not contradictory. Jesus’ resurrection is essential because unlike Lazarus who died again, Jesus went into a form of existence where there is no death. It seems as if even the gospel writers are mystified by what happened and without the resurrection it is very hard to account for why xianity arose in the first place. There is nothing like it in any other religion.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
3/2 ? such a …
3/2 ? such a convincing display of power. Isn’t raising a mortal, 3 days dead, a more impressive display of divinity than raising himself. After Lazarus why would anyone have doubts? Why would Thomas be sceptical of Jesus return if he had seen the same thing done a few days before? More importantly, why don’t the other 3 gospels mention it. The accounts of Jesus last days make more sense if you accept that the Lazarus story didn’t happen. But accept this and the whole of John begins to unravel.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
2/2 temporarily in …
2/2 temporarily in human form, then would they not expect that spirit part to return to God after the physical form died. Surely they wouldn’t expect his human body to come back to life. The argument goes that in doing so Jesus showed his power to overcome death thereby providing the ultimate proof of his divinity. But according to John he had already categorically done this by raising Lazarus from the dead a few days before. Why then was the act of him raising himself from death… con’d
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
1/2 Ok - here’s an …
1/2 Ok - here’s an example; I have never fully understood why many xians place so much more emphasis on how miraculous Jesus ressurection was compared to other mircales that supposedly took place. Lee Strobel says Jesus overcoming death and being bodily ressurected is absolutely critical and without it Xianity would be nothing. To me though this doesn’t seem that critical. If people believed that Jesus was the son of God and therefore essential a spirit entity……..con’d
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Akaka
I agree with …
Akaka
I agree with you and I think your “struggle” is a very healthy thing. I have my own doubts as well and I think we should always have a degree of agnosticism towards things. Most xians just accept things unquestioningly and just get mad when their faith is challenged. I would rather have an intellectually honest atheist who has thought it through than a mindless christian who hasn’t, although I of course do accept the xian worldview.
It is nice to hear there is someone like u out there.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
emopeacekid …
emopeacekid 2 of 2
The task has proved to be far more difficult than I’d initially envisaged. As I’m sure you’re aware, the various components of the Bible are linked on many different levels and in ways that you don’t see if you just read it casually. You think you’ve found an answer and then realize that the answer often provokes additional and sometimes more difficult questions.
I’ll try to find you an example of what I’m talking about.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
emopeacekid, …
emopeacekid, 1 of 2
Thanks for that - althoughit feels more like an ongoing struggle rather than homework. Up to a few years ago I was fairly mainstream Church of England but there were always certain aspects that I couldn’t accept or didn’t fully understand.
Recently I’ve been trying to pin them down clearly to see what would remain, as my view of Chistianity, if I were to exclude them from my beliefs.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Paul in …
Paul in Phillippians 2:5-11 many scholars believe is quoting from an early xian hymn (you can see the rythmic pattern especially in the greek) and this teaches that Jesus had God’s nature or form and became a man then dies but then was exalted by God and given the title “Lord” (qouted from Isa. 45:23 as refering to Yahweh). Also in Rev. 1:17, in a vision Jesus says that he is the “first and the last” qouting from Isa. 44:6 where God uses the phrase to designate his eternal nature.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Akaka,
you have …
Akaka,
you have some good comments bro, I can see you have done your homework. And I agree that Prov. 8 is not a direct reference to Jesus but is a metaphor and speaks as a female. My point is that the Christians used the metaphor and pointed it to Jesus and who they saw Jesus as. Jesus in Luke 7:35 used this same metaphor and applied it to his own work.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
2 Peter 3:8 states …
2 Peter 3:8 states basically that God is outside of time.Jesus, quoting from Ex. 3:14, says that he is the “I Am” or the eternal one. If Jesus was eternal and the creator then he did create Lucifer, who was good at first then became Satan.
January 19th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I’m not sure how …
I’m not sure how you’ve managed to acquire knowledge of how God experiences time. But assuming that you are correct about His internal nature, I pressume you would agree that God’s interaction with external elements is subject to time (eg. His role in the Exodus happened only once at a specific point in time) So my question is, if Jesus is eternal did He play a part in the creation of Lucifer? (Obviously the question pre-supposes that angels are not eternal entities and had a specific beginning)