DEBAT TUSSEN AMERIKAANSE EN AFRIKAANSE AKADEMICI OOR DIE OPSTANDING

Prof Sakkie Spangenberg  vs Prof William Lane Craig

Prof Hansie Wolmarans vs Michael Licona

How should Christ’s Resurrection Narrative be Understood?

Die Musaion, UP, 12 Mei om 19:00

Dit wil voorkom asof die waarheid nog nooit so in aanvraag was as in hierdie uitmergelende postmoderne tydperk nie. En tog is dit moeiliker om dit te vind as ooit tevore. Dit is veral waar van Bybelse waarheid: dit is ‘n oop vraag of die Christelike narratief versoen kan word met ‘n moderne lewensuitkyk. Nêrens kom hierdie vraag so sterk na vore as in gesprekke rondom Christus se opstanding nie. Dr William Lane Craig en Dr Michael Licona, prominente Christelike apologete vanuit die VSA, gaan in debat tree met Proff Sakkie Spangenberg en Hansie Wolmarans van die Nuwe Hervormingsbeweging oor hoe een van die belangrikste gebeurtenisse in die geskiedenis van die wêreld verstaan moet word. Die Nuwe Hervormers is welbekend en het al heelwat kontroversie ontlok. Hulle is geneig om die Christelike narratief op ‘n meer wêreldse, postmoderne wyse te vertolk.

Dr Craig is ‘n bekende Christelike apologeet en publieke debatvoerder van die Talbot School of Theology by Biola University, Kalifornië. Hy het reeds in debat getree met prominente ateïste soos Christopher Hitchens, skrywer van God is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything (sien skakel vir debatlokprent) en Daniel Dennett, skrywer van Breaking the Spell: the Naturalistic Roots of Religion) sowel as Victor Stenger, fisikus en skrywer of God, the Failed Hypothesis. Dr Licona is die Apologetics koördineerder by die North American Mission Board (Southern Baptist Convention). Hy het ‘n doktorsgraad van die Universiteit van Pretoria, en ‘n MA in Religious Studies van Liberty Universiteit.

Professor Spangenberg gee die volgende inligting ter wille van agtergrond:

In some circles of academic theology it is claimed that the ecumenical creeds of Christianity influence people’s understanding of the Bible. Christians read the biblical texts through the lenses of the fourth and fifth century Greek and Latin fathers of the Church (especially those of Augustine, Ambrose and Jerome). Doing so, according to critical scholars, is to read more into the texts than the texts themselves communicate. Responsible readings of the texts dealing with Jesus’ resurrection are those which focus on the Second Temple Jewish context in which these stories were told.

This claim seems to imply that the credal understanding of Jesus’ resurrection, among other things, a physical and bodily resurrection, is far removed from the Jewish cultural mindset of first century Palestine as well as disconnected from the message which the historical Jesus preached.

It has been observed that scholars work within different paradigms and that these contribute to misunderstanding and hamper meaningful communication. This is also the case with biblical scholars and theologicans. They do not all work within the same theological paradigm.

The debate will focus on these issues and try to answer the question: What did the writers of the New Testament try to communicate to the readers concerning Jesus’ resurrection?