Apr
17
2011

On the Resurrection of Christ


I’ve been impressed lately with Dr. William Lane Craig. He’s a Christian who debates renowned atheists on campus universities all around the world. My friend Mark Mittelberg turned me onto him, and I’ve enjoyed the few debates I’ve had the time to watch.

He doesn’t just debate these atheists. He annihilates them. The atheists typically stroll to the podium with their hands in their pockets, hardly “stooping” to prepare against Dr. Craig “the Christian,” spewing their canned anti-Christian attacks against people of faith.

Time and time again, Dr. Craig (respecting his audience enough to take his opponents seriously) clobbers them with evidence, logic, reason and sometimes wit. I watched a live Internet debate two weeks ago on Notre Dame campus with renowned atheist Sam Harris. I actually started to feel sorry for Harris. He was humiliated. (See here and search for the debate with Sam Harris.)

Yesterday was Palm Sunday. Christ rode into Jerusalem, knowing full well he was going to take on the religious legalists of his day, perhaps to his own death. The following shows how much evidence there is of the magnificence of the Christian story. It is very real. Enjoy!

About Chris Jeub

Chris is the father of 16 children, busily running the family businesses and learning the depths of love along the way.

  • Nuala

    This is posted publicly, so I guess a public answer is appropriate. I’m not trying to brow-beat you, but I’m very troubled by what you present here.

    The Bible says, “Out of the fullness of the heart, the mouth speaks.” Apparently your heart is very full of power-issues. “Humiliation”. “Annihilation”. Is this the language of your Christianity? For those of us outside of the states, we recognize it very well… it’s the language of a games-mad ruling power. This is “American-ese”. This was the language of Britain when she “ruled the waves”.

    I know my Bible pretty well, for what that’s worth, and the gospels spend very little time on the “powerful” Jesus, and a lot of time on the Jesus who deliberately renounced power and influence, in order to be vulnerable. That Jesus wasn’t a “winner”. That was the point, I think. That in not-winning, you win.

    I strongly question whether you’ve confused “winning” in the debate forum with valid spirituality. Do you figure that if you “win” a debate with someone, say your wife, that you “win” the relationship? Definitely not with me. It turns a lot of people off. Maybe most.

    Are you familiar with Jean Vanier? He began the organization L’arche, to provide community and care for the disabled. He is brilliant, an extremely accomplished individual in academia. Instead of using his intellect like a sword to skewer people, he dropped it all, learned true vulnerability and powerlessness from the people he lives with, and advocates for them. He’s inspiring; I encourage you to research him and his organization.

    • Anonymous

      I realize folks don’t appreciate debate, or are put off by the truth that debate exposes. I’d argue that you are debating right here on our blog. Here are a few CX questions, Nuala:

      1. Did you actually watch these debates? Or are you judging them based on my analysis?
      2. Do you often judge other’s hearts? Do you sense other problems I should be aware of other than “power-issues”?
      3. Do you know Jesus (or Paul or Peter or any of the prophets of old?) to have shied from debates?

      Just wondering. It’d be interesting to read your response…

      • Nuala

        I wish you well, and I wish you peace. Jean Vanier is worth looking up.

      • FYI…

        Jesus and Paul weren’t so dominant or combative or affected by Little Man Syndrome.

    • Dunpatt

      Nuala,
      We don’t need to throw “reason” out the window when we become Christians. Having said this though I realize (and in a very personal way) the sad truth that our church today is lacking in compassion for those who are lost, lonely and hurting. Maybe we can do both and show love to the unlovable as well as speak truth to them.

      If you read Acts 17 and 18, you will see that Paul “reasoned and argued in the synagogue with the Jews and those who worshiped there, and in the marketplace day after day with any who chanced to be there”; and also “he discoursed and argued in the synagogue every Sabbath and won over both Jews and Greeks.” Apparently he had gifts that allowed him to be a special apologist for the faith in this way.

      I am so thankful for people like Dr. William Craig who also can “reason and argue” well for the faith. I am also thankful for others who have such mercy, a true broken heart, for those who no one else wants to touch.

  • Lila F.

    I’m very interested by Nuala’s comment. Do you (Chris and Wendy) think that people can ever be proud of being right? That pride can come into the issue? I once wrote down a quote from Benjamin Franklin that, paraphrased, says that if he ever overcame pride, he would be proud that he had over come it.

    It concerns me too, because, though I’m not from outside the states, I see alot of the younger generations (ages 18-40s) turning to debate as a way to evangelize. People want to prove that we are right. And we are, but where is the line drawn between being right and “annihilating” the enemy?

    I’ve never really been a debater myself, but I have thought through alot of things, and I wonder what you all think of this. We must also remember that we can only plant the right seeds, and that God does the convincing. Anyway, would appreciate your input…

    • Anonymous

      Craig “annihilates” his opponent’s arguments, not his opponent. Harris is still alive and doing quite well, rambling off his godless worldview to his college audiences and selling lots of books.

      Debate is a functional way to think through the truth. Two opposing views bring their cases to an audience, and the audience gets to decide in the end. Why would anyone be offended at such a peaceful exchange of ideas?

      When I listen to William Lane Craig, I’m glad he prepares for the debates and thinks through the depth of the resolutions. His opponents (like Harris) insult the audience by treating them like college freshmen, referring to weak argumentation and anything but thought-provoking rebuttals.

      That’s my take on it. Go ahead and listen to the debate (Nuala, I assume, hasn’t). It’s quite good, and you’ll see what I mean.

  • Lila F.

    Oh, and BTW, Nuala is right, Jean Vaunier IS worth looking up!

  • JAC

    I don’t think the language in the initial post is really any different than what you’ll find in Ephesians 6:10-18, the Biblical description of “the full armor of God,” which tells us to use both “the gospel of peace” AND “the sword of the Spirit.” This imagery predates America by centuries. And I take Mr. Jeub at his word when he says, quite plainly, that he felt sorry for Mr. Harris in his humiliation.

  • Pingback: Is Debate Wrong?()