Wat het Julius Malema en Sakkie Spangeberg in gemeen?

Bill (William Lane) Craig het uiteindelik terug gerapporteer op hy en Licona se debat teen die liberale* Jesus Seminaar teoloë Sakkie Spangeberg en Hansie Wolmerans.

Nou vra jy dalk hoekom debatte soos hierdie saakmaak? Is dit nie maar net ‘n sinlose getwis oor woorde nie? As jy dit vra, moet jy in die eerste plek verstaan dat hierdie nie soos jou gewone skooldebat is nie. Craig debatteer nie om sy mening teenoor iemand anders se mening te stel nie, maar om mense op feite en logiese argumente wat na God/ Christus dui te wys. Sy debatte word dikwels afgesluit met ‘n uitnodiging om Christus aan te neem, en soms kry hy talle bekeerlinge.

Wat meer is, hy kry met debat talle luisteraars wat nie andersins na ‘n Christenspreker sal luister nie. Sal ‘n ongelowige kom luister na ‘n teoloog wat ‘n praatjie gee “Waarom ek glo Jesus het opgestaan”? Selfs ‘n gelowige soos ek sal nie uit my pad gaan daarvoor nie. Aan die ander kant, wat is die kans dat ‘n ongelowige, veral van die soort wie se skeptisisme van liberale teoloë aan universiteite kom, na ‘n “Het die opstanding werklik gebeur?” debat sal gaan luister? Veral as dit tussen sy gunsteling skeptiese teoloog , en ‘n man wat die hele pad van Amerika af kom net om die opstanding te verdedig, is? En as die Amerikaner dan die liberale teoloog se agterent skop, oor die geskiedenis-feite duidelik aan die Amerikaner se kant is, dan kan onse skeptikus ook iets leer. Hierdie soort debatte is dan bedoel vir die mens wie se geloof ondermyn word deur kamma-intelligente anti-geloofspraatjies. En vir die mens(meeste van ons!) wie se geloof versterk sal word as hy sien dat sy geloof op feite gegrond is.

 Hier is wat Craig op sy webblad daaroor sê: (Vetdruk myne)

 Debate with Spangenberg and Wolmarans

William Lane Craig

In the debate Mike and I defended two contentions: (1) The texts of the New Testament teach that Jesus’ resurrection was a physical, historical event; and (2) There’s no good reason to deny this traditional understanding of the texts.

In my opening speech I defended our first contention, and we planned that Mike would defend our second contention in response to any criticisms that Spangenberg might offer in his opening speech. Well, to our shock Spangenberg got up and rambled on about irrelevancies and never got around to saying anything about the question under debate, so that poor Mike had virtually nothing to respond to! So he had to reply to criticisms that Spangenberg has offered in his published work, even though he didn’t bring them up in the debate. Wolmarans then got up and, of all things, defended the mythological view of Jesus!** (In my nearly 30 years of debate experience with scholars like Crossan, Borg, Lüdemann, Ehrman, et al., I have never encountered anyone who defends this line, and both of my opponents in South Africa espouse this silliness!)

In my rebuttal I explained why this view of Christian origins has been eclipsed among New Testament scholars and then reviewed some of the evidence for the historicity of the events of Easter. A very angry Spangenberg then came to the podium and began to rail against apartheid and Christianity’s connection to it. It was unbelievable. Mike then explained that all the points raised by Prof. Spangenberg, though important and interesting in and of themselves, were just one red herring after another in the context of the debate that night. Then he closed with a very personal appeal to the Christians of South Africa not to be fooled by the false claims and superficial arguments (what arguments?) of those in the New Reformation movement. Wolmarans closed out the debate by telling a rambling and sentimental story about a baker and the parents of a little boy killed in a car accident. (I know–nobody else understood its relevance either.)

Die debat word hier, hier, en hier bespreek deur mense wat daar was. Hier is wat Mike Licona oor die debat te sê gehad het. Videos van Craig en Licona se lesings en debatte sal binnekort by AntWoord beskikbaar wees. Kontak hulle by antwoorde@yahoo.com as jy belang stel.

Nou vra jy my dalk, wat hét Julius Malema en Sakkie Spangeberg in gemeen? Lees hier vir die ooreenkoms wat Thenack sien.

————-

Ander gedagte-paadjies hieroor

    * “For some extraordinary reason, there is a fixed notion that it is more liberal to disbelieve in miracles than to believe in them. Why, I cannot imagine, nor can anybody tell me.” – G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

    ** Ek was vantevore verbaas en geskok toe dit lyk of George Claassen wonder of Jesus hoegenaamd bestaan het. Nou sien ek dat daar meer mense aan Suid Afrikaanse universiteite is wat nie eers weet van die geskiedkundige konsensus daaroor nie.

One response to “Wat het Julius Malema en Sakkie Spangeberg in gemeen?

  1. Een of ander denker het eendag aan sy opponent gese:”Jy is nie eens verkeerd nie”.

Lewer kommentaar

Verskaf jou besonderhede hieronder of klik op 'n logo om in te teken:

WordPress.com Logo

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by WordPress.com. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by Twitter. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by Facebook. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

Jy lewer kommentaar met jou rekening by Google+. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s