Craig and Crossley on the Resurrection

Over on The Burial of Jesus blog, I’ve shared the debate between William Lane Craig and James Crossley about the resurrection of Jesus, which apparently took place back in 2007. A major reason for writing my book on the burial of Jesus is the relevance of that subject to how we view the traditions about the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and so on. So obviously this debate interests me. I’ve embedded a YouTube version of the debate over on the other blog. I’m leaving the other form embedded here, although for me it seems not to work (although the link does).

If there is something that is a crucial underlying question (one that I address in the book), it is whether historians will ever be able to say that the most likely explanation for the written stories we now have, and for the beliefs of the early Christians, is that Jesus entered the life of the age to come in a bodily sense. And as a person with a personal Christian faith, one of the major struggles I’ve faced is to acknowledge the ways in which evidence about the burial of Jesus makes other explanations plausible, even if ultimately we acknowledge that the best (and perhaps only honest) answer a historian can give about what happened to the body of Jesus is “we don’t know”.

Stay in touch! Like Religion Prof on Facebook:
  • Jim

    fascinating (as i mentioned on the other blog!).how did you ever locate this?

  • Beyond Words

    Jim, I’m wearing my editor hat and smiling at this phrase: “…the resurrection of Jesus, which apparently took place back in 2007.” Now that it’s clear when it happened, we should be able to settle the issue with historical evidence!:)

  • Brian Auten

    Full MP3 Audio of the debate between Craig and Crossley can be found at

  • Anonymous

    It is sad that the lies of Paul continue to be repeated to this day. Jesus died at the cross, but did not rise: Paul’s words were empty promises, and too many of you took them as truth, for you wanted to believe. Jesus would have fumed at the way Paul made of him a God, and the violent path of Christianity that has occurred since. Paul was a sad man that saw how popular the priests of Mithras in Tarsus were, and molded Jesus into the image of Mithras to become popular himself. It is no coincidence that Emporer Constantine, Christianity’s progenitor, was an influential member in the Order of Mithras, and that early Christians attacked Jesus’ own extended family for refusing to follow Paul’s delusions.At least Paul was right about one thing, your faith is in vain, since you follow Mithras, warrior son of the Persian Sun God, just as much as you proclaim to follow Jesus, whom Paul proclaimed son of the God of Liars, YHWH.