I don't know if anyone else thinks this but I always cringe whenever Craig phrases one of his minimal facts in the way he does. Like in his debates, in this article he writes:
(2) thereafter various individuals and groups of people on different occasions and under a variety of circumstances experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead
I think a more unbiased way to phrase it is that they experienced "what they BELIEVED TO BE" appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. Phrasing it that way is more objective and won't lead skeptics to criticize Craig for begging the question. Phrasing it that way also leaves it open as to whether what they believed to be the case actually was the case. It's a neutral way of phrasing it. It allows for either conclusion.
I don't know if anyone else thinks this but I always cringe whenever Craig phrases one of his minimal facts in the way he does. Like in his debates, in this article he writes:
ReplyDelete(2) thereafter various individuals and groups of people on different occasions and under a variety of circumstances experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead
I think a more unbiased way to phrase it is that they experienced "what they BELIEVED TO BE" appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. Phrasing it that way is more objective and won't lead skeptics to criticize Craig for begging the question. Phrasing it that way also leaves it open as to whether what they believed to be the case actually was the case. It's a neutral way of phrasing it. It allows for either conclusion.