I'm sure this must have come up before, but I can't find it in the search engine, so I thought I'd post it here. It's the great theologian William Lane Craig's debate with John Dominic Crossan in 1995 on the subject of the historic Jesus.

http://www.philvaz.com/CraigCrossanDebate.mp3

Craig constantly refers to "the majority of scholars" and a "consensus" in this debate, which is supposedly overwhelming not simply for the existence of a historic Jesus, but the resurrection of Jesus, as well. This inconvenient fact is often silently left out of atheist defenses of the existence of an historic Jesus, where we are instead made to assume that the scholarly consensus to which we should all defer are sober, objective archaeologists and agnostic historians with no theological axe to grind. Being published by a peer-reviewed, major academic press (as opposed to, say, Prometheus, or self-published) means that your ideas and research has been fully vetted by the scholarly community. The fact that William Lane Craig has been published at least twice by Oxford University Press is another inconvenient fact never mentioned while bashing "amateurs" like Price or Doherty.

Here are my comments on the debate (all directed at Craig):

Craig's two main contentions
1. The real Jesus rose from the dead
2. If contention 1 is false, then Xianity is a fairy tale which no rational person should believe

But how can we prove contention 1, you ask? Miracles are by their very nature unprovable, and none have ever been observed in modern times. So right away it's looking like Xianity is a fairy tale.

15:00
The majority of NT critics today agree that the HJ deliberately stood and spoke in the place of God himself. The German theologian Horst Georg Pöhlmann reports, “Today there is virtually a consensus that Jesus came on the scene with an unheard of authority – namely, the authority of God…”

Theologians agree that Jesus was the son of God? Shocking. And that's proof of what, exactly?

16:40
The key to answering the question of who the real Jesus was lies in how we assess the resurrection of Jesus.

Well, first you have to prove that the resurrection actually happened. Then we can assess it to find the "real" Jesus.

16:50-22:40
Let me share with you four facts which are established by the consensus of scholarship today. These provide adequate, inductive grounds for inferring Jesus’ resurrection.
Fact #1. Joseph of Arimathea buries Jesus in his personal tomb
Fact #2. Women found the tomb empty. Most scholars hold firm to the accuracy of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.
Fact #3. Jesus appears to his disciples after the crucifixion. “This is a fact almost universally acknowledged by NT scholars today.” (Reasons for this consensus include the unexpected act of the disciples fishing.) Norman Perrin sums up the consensus of scholars that the more we look into the NT, the firmer the rock upon which they are based.
Fact #4. The disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead.

Four "facts"? No, those are four myths. That the "consensus" believes that they are not myths is their problem, not mine, or any other rational thinker. Using the Bible to prove the Bible true is the mother of all circular arguments which you, as a supposed logician, should know.

22:43
Once you agree to these four facts, then its very difficult to deny that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation.

Except they're not facts, they're just sections of the larger myth. That's how narrative theology works.

23:41
It seems pretty implausible that the consensus of scholarship would be wrong and Crossan would be right…Crossan’s conclusions are determined by his presuppositions. But these presuppositions are so bizarre, so implausible, that no confidence can be proposed in conclusions drawn from them.

You just said that a man can come back from the dead, and for proof of that, you cited a 2000 year old religious storybook. That is probably the most bizarre presupposition that a human being has ever asserted.

25:58-28:00
Crossan has a serious problem: He’s a naturalist. He comes to the table already assuming that miracles are impossible. (Here WLC rips Crossan’s Jesus book vis-à-vis other theologians [called scholars], an insult that Crossan could have easily turned against WLC with the severe criticism of his ridiculous books, but, being a gentleman, chose not to.)

It's called scientific rationalism. It's not a "presupposition" to accept that everything acts according to natural laws, since it's proven a thousand times a day, unlike miracles, which have never been proven.

28:18
Crossan’s denial of this fact (the resurrection) is based on idiosyncratic presuppositions which no other serious NT critic accepts.

Crossan accepts natural laws, but this posture is "idiosyncratic" and "bizarre" to New Testament critics? That means the "consensus" you've been constantly deferring to is as worthless for a logical discussion as a fishnet condom is to safe sex. (* Apologies to Caliliessia.)

28:35
If Jesus did not rise, then Xianity is a fairy tale which no rational person should believe.

Correct. And you, nor anyone else in the last 2000 years, haven't given humanity any logical reason to think that he did rise.

31:17
Any interpretation of reality not in accord with the facts about reality is just a fairy tale which no rational person should believe.

Correct again. How sad that religion has so warped your mind that you are not a rational person, as you just demonstrated above.

31:40
The essential historical facts undergirding Jesus’ resurrection are regarded as well-established by the majority of biblical critics.

The problem is that the majority of biblical critics don't seem to know what "facts" actually are, namely verifiable information from reliable sources. Quaint, ancient religious texts are the opposite of that.

54:00
Crossan’s radical presuppositions (include) … that naturalism holds.

It is beyond pathetic how you keep banging on and on about how "radical" and "bizarre" it is to posit that the universe operates according to natural laws, and we have no reason whatsoever to think that the same didn't hold true 2000 years ago.

55:56
The question is, what is the literary genre that we’re dealing with? Crossan knows that the gospels are not of the genre of myth or allegory or folk story or fairy tale. They’re of the genre of historical writing…the judgement of Sir William Ramsey I think still stands. He wrote, “Luke is a historian of the first rank. This author deserves to be placed among the very greatest of historians.”

First of all, I'm pretty sure you just quote-mined that from Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict, which shows the real depth of your so-called scholarship. Second of all, the gospels' genre is theology, not history. Written by evangelists, not historians. This notion that ancient mystical, theological documents are reliable history is a presupposition far more "bizarre" than anything you could pin on your opponent. It says much about the intellectual integrity of your field that you're considered one of the "leading minds" of biblical studies.

Who still wants to defend the consensus after listening to that?

duplicate post

Blood wrote:Craig constantly refers to "the majority of scholars" and a "consensus" in this debate, which is supposedly overwhelming not simply for the existence of a historic Jesus, but the resurrection of Jesus, as well. This inconvenient fact is often silently left out of atheist defenses of the existence of an historic Jesus ...

What "fact"? Craig offers no evidence for his claim.

Craig's got form for making unsubstantiated claims about academic consensus. He's also claimed that "There has been literally a revolution in American philosophy with regard to this question [God] during the second half of the 20th century." His evidence? A reference to a 1980 article from Time magazine! This nonsense was debunked without breaking a sweat.

So Blood, to make your case, you've accepted at face-value a claim by a Christian fundamentalist apologist. This ought to tell you something about your case.

OK, so once again, the "consensus" you champion is actually only limited to the highly selective consensus that passes your tests.

Erm, no. WLC offers no evidence for this alleged "consensus" in favor of a historical resurrection. Lists no scholars. No pieces of research. No surveys of academic opinion. Zilch. Nada.

The only fact here is that you've accepted a claim from a fundie apologist at face value. Woeful.

Kalamity Kraig is a great theologian? When the holy fuck did that happen? Last time I looked, he was a fuckwitted apologist for genocide.

A minor correction to the above: Craig does name one scholar, Norman Perrin. Perrin died in 1976. This is an age ago in New Testament scholarship. Before the "third quest" for the historic Jesus even got going. Whole careers have come and gone in the time since then. If you describe a current academic consensus, you don't reference a man who died two decades ago!

And note WLC's slippery language. He doesn't reference a specific piece of work by Perrin. So it's already the authority fallacy. Nor, if you read carefully, does he say that Perrin describes a consensus around a bodily resurrection. No, he paraphrases Perrin as saying, "the more we look into the NT, the firmer the rock upon which they are based." He gives a direct quote immediately beforehand, implying that it's from Perrin, but he doesn't attribute it. Nor does the quote specify exactly what the "fact" is. Craig says that Jesus appeared to his followers. Again, slippery. Nothing about the nature of these appearances. They could be psychological. Craig doesn't say.

This greasy implication-ridden apologetic is Craig all-over. I wouldn't trust the evasive SOB as far as a banana skin could throw him.

hackenslash wrote:Kalamity Kraig is a great theologian? When the holy fuck did that happen? Last time I looked, he was a fuckwitted apologist for genocide.

Indeed. So no claim he makes should be taken as fact!

Byron wrote:Erm, no. WLC offers no evidence for this alleged "consensus" in favor of a historical resurrection. Lists no scholars. No pieces of research. No surveys of academic opinion. Zilch. Nada.

The only fact here is that you've accepted a claim from a fundie apologist at face value. Woeful.

I was making the point, which is clear to everyone but you, that everyone in NT studies cites a "consensus" to back up whatever nonsense they may be spewing, even (especially!) errant jackasses like Craig. You don't get to pick and choose who YOU think should be the consensus, because of course you would exclude Craig and about 90% of the rest of NT scholars.

Byron wrote:

This greasy implication-ridden apologetic is Craig all-over. I wouldn't trust the evasive SOB as far as a banana skin could throw him.

Well, he's been published twice by Oxford, so by your own standards, Craig's more trustworthy than Doherty.

Blood wrote:I was making the point, which is clear to everyone but you, that everyone in NT studies cites a "consensus" to back up whatever nonsense they may be spewing, even (especially!) errant jackasses like Craig. You don't get to pick and choose who YOU think should be the consensus, because of course you would exclude Craig and about 90% of the rest of NT scholars.

No, they don't. The two consensuses referenced are that Jesus existed (unanimous amongst academic research), and that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet (a lesser consensus). Unlike Craig, these haven't been plucked from thin air. Specific works have been referenced, including 2001's The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate and Maurice Casey's 2010 Jesus of Nazareth.

Many points raised aren't consensus positions, and haven't been claimed as such. No consensus exists around Allison's conclusion that Jesus was an ascetic, nor E.P. Sanders' that the fracas in the Temple courtyard is a historical fact.

Of course I can "pick and choose" which positions I describe as consensus ones. Your points here are just incoherent, sorry.

Blood wrote:Well, he's been published twice by Oxford, so by your own standards, Craig's more trustworthy than Doherty.

More incoherence, focusing on the person, not the position. Trustworthiness isn't conferred by being published by a university press. Academic checks exist precisely because no one's expected to take research on trust! Craig also made his bullshit "philosophy's gone theist" claim in a Cambridge book on atheism. The claim's no less BS as a result.

It might very well be true that the "consensus" of "scholars" who have considered the question of whether Jesus' resurrection actually occurred have concluded that it did.

In the same way, the majority of "scholars" who have written books questioning whether Elvis Presley is still alive, or whether the world is secretly controlled by a race of shape shifting reptilian humanoids, have also reached conclusions in the affirmative. The reason being, of course, that actual scholars consider such questions too ludicrous, and their answers too self-evident , to even be worth their attention.

Shrunk wrote:It might very well be true that the "consensus" of "scholars" who have considered the question of whether Jesus' resurrection actually occurred have concluded that it did.

In the same way, the majority of "scholars" who have written books questioning whether Elvis Presley is still alive, or whether the world is secretly controlled by a race of shape shifting reptilian humanoids, have also reached conclusions in the affirmative. The reason being, of course, that actual scholars consider such questions too ludicrous, and their answers too self-evident , to even be worth their attention.

There you go with your presuppositions against shape-shifting reptilian humanoids.

Byron wrote: Trustworthiness isn't conferred by being published by a university press.

I'm glad to hear you admit that. Not the impression I got from your other posts. So you're OK with Craig being peer-reviewed by Oxford. Doesn't that kind of diminish your main point about the high standards and trustworthiness of academic peer review, though?

Blood wrote:So you're OK with Craig being peer-reviewed by Oxford. Doesn't that kind of diminish your main point about the high standards and trustworthiness of academic peer review, though?

Not a bit. Peer review screens out basic errors and weak arguments. It's one of many safeguards. It doesn't matter what rubbish Craig says as a person: if the material he submitted met basic standards, it'll go through.

Craig constantly refers to "the majority of scholars" and a "consensus" in this debate, which is supposedly overwhelming not simply for the existence of a historic Jesus, but the resurrection of Jesus, as well

What "scholars" is he talking about?

Are they theologians? In which case they should be ignored because any bullshit can be published by a "theologian", even if it contradicts everything we know about reality.