William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 31: Physical, Bodily Appearances

 WHERE WE ARE

In Part 24 of this series, I gave three good reasons for the conclusion that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus was Dead on Arrival, and thus three good reasons to conclude that Craig's case fails.

In Part 30 of this series, I showed that there is a fourth good reason for concluding that Craig's case was Dead on Arrival. The problem is that the three key historical claims that are the foundation of Craig's case are missing a crucial historical claim, and this dooms his case to failure. The missing crucial historical claim is this:

(HC4) Jesus died on the cross.

Without establishing Jesus' death on the cross, Craig has no hope of establishing that Jesus rose from the dead after his crucifixion. Death is a prerequisite for resurrection.

So, there are at least four good reasons for the conclusion that Craig's case was Dead On Arrival, and at least four good reasons to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

Craig presents two main lines of evidence in support of his claim that (HC2), the most important historical claim in his case, is a historical fact:

HC2: Beginning on the first day of the week following Jesus' crucifixion, various individuals and groups experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive. 

The first line of evidence consists of six alleged examples of appearances of the risen Jesus that are mentioned by Paul in his letter 1 Corinthians (15:3-8):

• Appearance to Peter
• Appearance to the Twelve
• Appearance to five hundred brethren
• Appearance to James (Jesus' brother)
• Appearance to "all the apostles."
• Appearance to Saul of Tarsus (i.e., Paul)

I critically examined the alleged appearance to the Twelve in Part 25, the alleged appearance to Peter in Part 26, the alleged appearances to five hundred brethren, to James (Jesus' brother), and to "all the apostles" in Part 27, and the alleged appearance to Saul/Paul in Part 28.

Because NONE of those six examples provided significant support for Craig's claim that (HC2) is a historical fact, Craig's first line of evidence fails to show that (HC2) is a historical fact. The failure of this attempt by Craig to establish (HC2) as a historical fact gives us a good reason to believe that premise (2) is false:

2. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts.

Because premise (C) asserts that premise (2) is true, we also have a good reason to believe that premise (C) is false. Premise (C) is a premise in the core argument of Craig's case, so this gives us a second good reason to reject the core argument in Craig's case[1], and a fifth good reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

Craig's second line of evidence in support of his claim that (HC2) is a historical fact consists of four examples of alleged appearances of the risen Jesus: (RF3, page 381): 

• The appearance to Peter
• The appearance to the Twelve
• The appearance to the women disciples
• That Jesus appeared to his disciples in Galilee

In Part 29 of this series, I showed that NONE of these four examples provides significant support for (HC2) being a historical fact. Because Craig's second line of evidence in support of (HC2) being a historical fact fails, we have a second good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and thus we have a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false (both of his attempts to show that (HC2) is a historical fact failed).

This gives us a very good reason to believe that premise (C) is false, and thus we now have a second very good reason to believe that the core argument of Craig's case is unsound. Because we have a very good reason to believe that the core argument of Craig's case is unsound, our fifth good reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails is a very good reason.

CRAIG'S THIRD LINE OF EVIDENCE ABOUT ALLEGED APPEARANCES

I have shown that Craig's first and second lines of evidence for his claim that (HC2) is a historical fact fail to provide a single example of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus that provides significant support for this claim. However, Craig has a third line of evidence about the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus.

The third line of evidence does not attempt to show that (HC2) is a historical fact. So, the third line of evidence is not relevant to the question of the truth or falsehood of premise (2). The point of Craig's third line of evidence is to argue that the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus were of a certain nature:

3) The resurrection appearances were physical, bodily appearances. (RF3, page 382)

 Craig acknowledges that this is a different issue from whether the alleged appearances actually happened:

So far the evidence I've presented does not depend on the nature of the post-mortem appearances of Jesus. I've left it open whether they were visionary or physical in nature. (RF3, page 382)

It is important to Craig to show that not only was Jesus alive again on Easter Sunday, but that God had raised Jesus from the dead with a physical and immortal body.

However, because (HC2) does not assert or imply that Jesus was raised with a physical and immortal body, Craig's third line of evidence is irrelevant to the question of whether (HC2) is a historical fact.  

Thus, only Craig's first and second lines of evidence concerning the alleged appearances of the risen Jesus are relevant to determining whether (HC2) is a historical fact.  Therefore, the failure of Craig's first two lines of evidence provides us with a very good reason to believe that premise (2) is false, and that premise (C) is false, and that the core argument of Craig's case is unsound.  

Therefore, we have a very good fifth reason to conclude that William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails. 

END NOTES

1. In Part 24, I showed that premise (1c) is false, which gave us a very good reason to reject the core argument of Craig's case.