Feb 23, 2010
William Lane Craig’s Resurrection Method
William Lane Craig argues a bit differently for the Resurrection by honing in on different evidence than is used by Gary Habermas’ Minimal Facts approach. Craig likes to use the following evidence to argue his case for the Resurrection:
- First Contention: Any adequate historical hypothesis about the resurrection must explain four established facts:
- The burial: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb.
- The empty tomb: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
- The postmortem appearances: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
- Origin of the Christian Way: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason not to.
- Second Contention: The best explanation of these facts is that God raised Jesus from the dead
I have already posted about the five facts that Gary uses here.
[...] You can find the Habermas/Licona version here. You can find the Craig version here. [...]
[...] had not planned on adding a second post to this one. However, after reading Craig’s essay The Empty Tomb of Jesus, he expands on the first two [...]
[...] argument for the Resurrection. I’ve posted Craig’s Resurrection Method previously (here, here, and here), but in this particular discussion he adds an additional point as he leads off [...]