I’m so glad you defeated Covid, Sir! I heard it was a close call. We will meet one fine day, but hopefully not any time soon because you are very much needed here on earth.
@15:50: Not only does the creed in 1 Cor. 15 refute the legendary hypothesis, it is also a good counter to the theory that Jesus’ body was thrown into a ditch or a common grave: “….he was buried” (1 Cor. 15:4a).
It only takes a single person, either in a leadership position or otherwise convincing a small group of people in a time full of superstition and mythohistory. It really doesn’t counter legendary development or a mass grave. And we know legendary development can happen extremely fast, today as well as in ancient history. It was common practice of the time to embellish.
@@Tinesthia This interview in and of itself is a good example of legendary development. WLC claiming that "there is a general consensus among historians today, " etc, will leave believers in utter disbelief that we all don't believe. They will then repeat the same claim to others, and further embellished, to be sure.
The legendary development happens in the gospels in regards to how Jesus is said to be experienced post-resurrection. Just read Mark 16, Matthew 28, Luke 24 and John 20-21 in that order and you'll see the story evolving more fantastic over time.
@@dodumichalcevski yes, and seeing that we have no explanation for the beginning of the universe or the origin of life and most likely never will, at least when it comes to the conception of the universe, I’d say the most likely conclusion is that an extremely intelligent creator is more likely than unlikely.
Here's a wider context to consider: Jesus predicted the Kingdom of Heaven on earth before some of his disciples died- it didn't happen. Paul links the resurrection of Jesus with the imminent resurrection and new age to dawn in his lifetime or thereabouts- it didn't happen. Shouldn't these failed prophecies be taken into consideration when asking whether or not there was an initial resurrection?
Mr. Craig says "Jews believed the resurrection only occurred after the end of the world" Response: Paul and the earliest Christians believed they were living at the end of the world - see 1 Cor 10:11, Mt. 24:3. If they believed they were living in the end times then the resurrection was a necessary falling out of that end time expectation. So we can now see how the resurrection was expected per the historical context in which the earliest Christians found themselves. And this serves to rebut the apologetic that they would only believe Jesus has been "assumed into heaven" after his death. This is especially true if Jesus went around predicting his resurrection (like the gospels say)! There were also claims by some that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead - Mark 6:14-16 and that an ancient prophet had "arisen" - Luke 9:8. How could these people come to that conclusion if the idea of a single dying and rising figure before the end of the world didn't exist? Obviously, it did exist and it existed in the exsct same historical context of Jesus and his followers. Mr. Craig also appeals to the fact that since Paul believed in the physical resurrection of the body, that it must follow that the appearances were physical. This is a non-sequitur as one could believe Jesus had been physically resurrected - due to background resurrection beliefs (Isa. 26:19) but also believe he didn't "appear" to anyone until after his exaltation to heaven, making the experiences visionary in nature i.e. not physical interactions with a resurrected corpse. Christian apologists cannot deny this scenario because they are committed to this happening in the case of Paul - 1 Cor 15:8, Acts 26:19.
Mt. 24 refers to the end of the age, not the end of the world. And, that's what happened at 70 A.D (it was the end of the Jewish Age). Also, it was written in 2 Thessalonians 2 that their gathering together with Jesus isn't imminent, and that the Son of Perdition has to appear first (read End Time Delusions for more info).
@@jab1289 End of the age/world is an end time event where the final judgment takes place - Mt. 13:36-43, Heb. 9:26-28. Chapter 24 refers to the "end" in verse 6 and 14. The Son of Man coming with angels is necessarily an end time event. 2 Thess was written in response to what Paul said about imminence in 1 Thess 4:15-17. In other words, the later author is 2 Thess is having to explain away the problem because Jesus didn't return like Paul said he would.
@@resurrectionnerd In 1 Thessalonians, he didn't say when that would take place, but that the people that will be there won't preceed those that died before. Also, the word in the Greek for world (Matthew 24:3) Is Aion, which means age. Jesus only came symbolically in Matthew 24, not literally (like at the end of the world).
@@jab1289 Paul includes himself in the "we" group who will still be alive when Jesus returns. Read the passage. I gave the surrounding context for aion. Read Mt. 13:36-43 where it coincides with the final judgment. It's the "end of the world" as they knew when it the Son of Man would return with angels, judge everyone and establish God's kingdom. This did not take place obviously and so the predictions were wrong.
Would you say the birth narrative of Alexander the Great are not the basis of the Christian virgin birth? Rather, Alex birth is based on Christs .Isiah 53 pre dates Alexander’s virgin birth by close to 300 yrs. Also, is it Isiah Again, concerning the young woman/ virgin giving birth. As for the Res, what do you think about Innana, circa 2000 B. C who was nailed to a tree I think. Osiris was raised from the dead arround the same time. Is there anything to the fact that Mr. O had protelysiers preaching throughout the Mediterranean world?
38:20 I don't understand this argument. Dr. Craig claims that there is no "realistic chance" that Jesus could have been taken down from the cross alive, because of the competence of the executioners. But if Jesus was indeed alive afterwards, he must have either not died or he transformed from being dead to being alive. But Dr. Craig hasn't explained why the chance of the dead Jesus becoming alive again is more realistic than the chance that the normal execution methods did not produce death in this case.
Jesus was scourged so badly before crucifixion that his bones were on display. His whole body, back, front and legs was scourged and covered in blood. They used Roman flags that ripped the flesh off. He would have lost so much blood even before crucifixion. And the Romans scourged him so badly to satiate the Jewish religious leaders who accused him of blasphemy. He was already close to death. It was enough to induce the onset of hypovolemic shock, when a person loses 20 percent or more of the body’s blood supply. They forced a crown of thorns onto his head. His face would have been covered in blood. Then he had to carry his heavy cross. It fell on him, crushed his chest, dislocated his arm and injured his right eye. He was then crucified by Roman soldiers who were expert at killing people. The nails went through his nerves and blood vessels causing excruciating pain. They pulled and dislocated his arms when nailing him. After he died, a soldier thrust a spear into his chest. The angle of the thrust would have likely pierced his heart. Certainly it went through his lungs. Blood and water came out of the wound. During the slow process of asphyxiation by which crucifixion kills, the victim suffocates to death. And the pericardial sac would have been engorged, and the right side of the heart enlarged. When water and blood came from the wound, they knew it indicated he was dead. The pericardial sac and the heart had been pierced. Another medical explanation is that Jesus had a haemothorax caused by chest trauma. Another is that he died from ruptured heart muscle.
@@JCJNET We don’t know who the executioners were or their level of expertise. But even if they were experts, Craig has not demonstrated that the probability that they made a mistake or that they lied is less than the probability that Jesus came back to life after being dead.
@@Peter-qz8qs See the explanation on the Bart Ehrman site, HOW DID JESUS DIE? WHO KILLED HIM AND WHY? How did Jesus die? Jesus died on the cross not by loss of blood, but by suffocation, as the long cavity distended and he couldn’t longer breathe. Victims could suffer for days before the end came. And how many days Jesus was on the cross? His death, in fact, came quickly because he had been whipped to a pulp before the crucifixion.
@@JCJNET Okay. I just read that entire page. No where on that page is it demonstrated, nor does it cite anything which demonstrates that the probability that the executioners made a mistake or that they lied is less than the probability that Jesus came back to life after being dead.
If Jesus was a peasant carpenter “actually tecton?) born/from Nazareth then why would he have tomb in Jerusalem? Not hometown. Not where family from. Could his body taken to hometown after sabbath? Before others/disciple got there? Seems more plausible than (magical) supernatural event.
And Islam denied resurrection Jesus Christ and only criticized Bible but never ancient history, why? Because can’t, is just to powerful the evidence, and yet the astonishing most of them not even christian
Demons all over trying to dismiss all they can Rebuke em’ Those who keep with the Holy Spirit will know the truth ❤ God bless you all who believe in the Blood Of JESUS 🙏
@@oldpossum57 Why do you say that? You should really educate yourself more before speaking out of turn. Paul’s letters are 100% historical history, including the citing of early church creeds. The Gospels are well accepted by scholars as Ancient Biographies (mention real people, ancestry to public life, not romance novel, etc). Also they come within the same lifetime or within one generation of when they lived.
@@tc4878 They may be accepted by fundamentalist bible scholars as factual events, but these are blind to the problems the texts pose. T’épaulas is 20 years after, Mark 40 years after, Matt and Luke 60+ years after, John 70-80 years after. Even well-to-do, educated folks of the time were credulous, superstitious, and ignorant. The jesus cultists were insecure peasants, and largely completely illiterate. People like that make up stories. If the events were true, many of them would have been duly noted in Roman sources, in contemporary documents by the Jews. But they are not. We have references to Christians existing (as noxious pests) in Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, but they tell us nothing about your jesus . To any non Christian, your jesus was as real as Mithras. About seven of Paul’s letters are considered fairly trust-worthy. The others are not. As an historian myself, I can tell you that this jesus character is pretty shadowy. We cannot trust the stories, because they come to us as having circulated a long time as oral folk tradition among the ignorant as superstitious If I told you I saw a 103 year old JFK driving past Dealey Plaza in Dallas on 2 November 2021, I hope you would not believe me. (Some qanon cultists do claim this.) So do not ask any one to believe physically-impossible miracles and resurrections from 2000 years ago. For the choice is simple: either everything we know about physics, chemistry and biology is dead wrong, or some cultists made up a bunch of stories 2000 years ago. I will allow that there might be some true (not miraculous!) events in your NT, but we will never know which , because we have no independent sources. What you seem unwilling to understand is that if we took the wild imaginings of your NT as fact, we would have to grant the same status to the wild imaginings of the Qur’an, and to the wild imaginings of the Book of Mormon (even though we know the sources Joseph Smith plagiarized to make it up). You might believe in this stuff. I am sure generations of scholars took the stories as factually accurate on faith. They never questioned their scriptures. But as modern historians, we can’t trust them. For example, the founding myth of Israel is the story o Exodus. You are probably familiar with it. For millennia, people assumed it was factual. But for decades now, the professional historians and ar+geologist even in Israel admit it is all made up. There was no Exodus, there was no mass slavery in Egypt, the was no parting of the Red Sea, there was no wandering in the desert for 40 years, there was no genocide (thank goodness) of the Canaanites. The Israelites originated as a tribe in south Canaan. If you want to learn, this is an excellent time. There are lots of books, videos, podcasts.
@@oldpossum57I love it when folks just drop a statement making a claim and offer no defence or evidence at all. And yes, just like you, I will require unequivocal proof that it's "imaginative literature". Scientific proof, that is.
4:00 _Its not "an extraordinary singular event"_ Resurrection is an eschatological fact, Jesus was not the first and in order to be _a Son of Man_ it must have happened to Jesus prior to this second eschatological event, Resurrection is commonplace but Ascension is the key event.
Re: 17:15 I pity anyone who is defending the resurrection as having great evidence and then presents this. Paul, cited a church statement of faith/creed, that stated a few named witnesses, and 500 unnamed witnesses, therefor these events actually took place. If this evidence was presented in support of something they don’t already believe, would they still think it’s good evidence? Say a historically known foreigner cites a tribal creed that several named elders and 500 unlisted members of the tribe witnessed their leader communing with the Great Bear Spirit and it came down and granted him the strength of ten men. Would you now call this event a historical fact? If you sign a statement of faith prior to looking at evidence, if you take donations from people who have signed statements of faith, it becomes nearly impossible for you to be objective because you are have assumed the conclusion or are pressured to support the donators conclusion and are going to try and make everything fit that assumption subconsciously if not consciously.
As a Catholic, I have to apologize for Davis's appalling lack of manners. If you're lucky enough to talk to one of the preeminent theologians alive today, you do not interrupt him, talk over him, or lecture him about the particularities of your own beliefs. I'm sorry, Dr Craig. We're not all so ill-bred.
Dr Craig is well known as Low Bar Bill in secular philosophical circles for having an epistemological bar down to his toes. If this is a leading theologian, then religion is over, as it should be, because it is anachronistic in the 21st century. Christianity is an absurdity.
Let's get up to date, in the Eucharist we hear *This is my body, given for you* this Divine truth played out at every Mass is the testimony of God the Son that in the Sacrament a greater truth is present, Christ present in the Eucharist.
According to Paul, Jesus was raised spiritually, not bodily. In 1 Cor 15:4, he used the Greek word egeiro, which means to awaken. It’s the same word used in Matthew 8:25, when Jesus was asleep in the boat during the storm and was awakened (egeiro) by the disciples. If Paul was meaning a bodily resurrection, he would have used the Greek word anastasis, not egeiro. Matthew used the Greek word optonamai (or optomai) to describe Jesus appearing (origami) at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:3). The text itself says the transfiguration was a vision, not real (Matthew 17:9). Paul used the same word to optinamai to refer to Jesus appearing to various people after his death. The tradition of appearances to others that Paul was exposed to was a tradition of spiritual appearances. Paul himself never met Jesus bodily, but only in a vision.
John 20:27 Then saith he (JESUS) to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
Luke 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
@@jomdizon6930 the gospels were penned two decades after Paul and Peter’s letters. They’re not the oldest resurrection tradition. They’re inventions, along with their miracle-working god-man Jesus. Paul and Peter’s letters are the oldest tradition of resurrection and they clearly teach a spiritual resurrection.
@@jomdizon6930 the gospels were penned two decades after Paul and Peter’s letters. They’re not the oldest resurrection tradition. They’re inventions, along with their miracle-working god-man Jesus. Paul and Peter’s letters are the oldest tradition of resurrection and they clearly teach a spiritual resurrection.
can anyone possibly help determine if vatican folio #140 still exists. it is an aramaic codex of the 4 gospels transcribed by order of the 3rd bishop of edessa with a colophon from the 18th canun prior, of the year of the greeks 389 (78 ad) transported by joseph assemani between 1715-1718 from the chaldean patriarchate in baghdad to the vatican library. stolen by napoleon. whereabouts unknown. louvre, bibliotheque nationale, french archives possible locations. permanent loss possible. to wit: ua-cam.com/video/I94Ky6tDxEI/v-deo.html
So many unsupported assertions. People just say things as fact, present no argument or evidence, and pretend like that settles the issue. Whatever you pick from those four choices, it requires significant explanation. WLC gave his argument. Where is yours?
@@channingb2577 Well ideas are known true by evidence, not absence of alternative hypothesis. * Craig's position doesn't have sufficient evidence, due to the nature of the claims involving things we've never seen before (miracles, resurrections, etc) * So without any alternate position, Craig's position isn't reasonable; it isn't rational. * But we also have people like Paulogia here on YT who thankfully provided a much stronger hypothesis in the vid, _"NO RESURRECTION REQUIRED! How Christianity Probably Began."_ To me the abundance of scammers on Earth strongly indicates the idea was spread by people who are some mix of (a) scammers and (b) people legitimately convinced by the scam. The idea even at face value is laughable, right? We're talking about a god said to be all-knowing who chose to come to earth as human (knowing humans regularly scam other humans!) and did all human-fakeable things (faith-healing, misdirection (feeding the multitudes), impersonating the dead, etc). Think about that. Really think about it. If you're playing a videogame and you know for a fact the sentient inhabitants called "Sims" regularly scam each other, do you show up as a Sim? You'd have to have put _zero_ thought into your strategy if that's how you approached your communication, right? Yet this god is said to be "all-knowing".
I was trained by God, I learned the secrets of the Bible, Jesus, Spiritual Entities, I am now the most gifted person on Earth, I am now seeking aid , society will not help solve this so God had to step in
This interview itself is a good example of how the resurrection fable spread. Notice that since WLC has a sympathetic ear, he states that there "is a general consensus among historians today that Jesus of Nazareth came on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. That is to say the authority to stand and speak in God's place...He claimed that in himself the kingdom of God was breaking into human history..." WLC prefaces this claim by saying the resurrection must be considered in this context. This is highly misleading, and I don't think WLC would say this in a debate. Critical scholarship of the New Testament has cast doubt on exactly what Jesus said and taught, what he believed his role to be, etc. But there certainly is no "general consensus among historians" that Jesus went around talking as portrayed in the Gospel of John. I'm not saying WLC is disingenuous, but religious fervor has moved him to overstate the case. Furthermore, we begin not with the "facts" of the empty tomb and appearances. We begin, first and foremost, with the claims of death, burial, resurrection and appearances. This is an important distinction. If we take things in chronological order, our first claim is from Paul, 20 years after the death of Jesus. The empty tomb is not mentioned anywhere by Paul. First off, it's interesting that Paul makes no distinction between the appearance of Jesus to others and to him. But the appearance of Jesus to Paul is described in visionary terms, certainly not bodily. Still, our first order of business is to evaluate Paul's claim- not to try and explain this experience (and assuming others, like Peter and James, claimed to have had an experience, their claims are also where scrutiny begins- then the experiences). Is there anything in Paul's own writings that would call into question his character and/or mental and physical health? If so, that taints the veracity of his claims. WLC is trying to start the race ahead of the "facts."
REINCARNATION Look in the Last chapter of Job where God granted him an extra 150 years since he was an old man at this time and a lifetime was considered *threescore years and ten* it is obvious that God being gracious would not allow Job to continue on way past his old age for another 150 years, give us a break, if Job was upset about the existential catastrophe he had just endured he would have been even more incensed at 150 more years in a life as living corpse. A life means a mother father family and the prospect of opportunities. Follow through the post I have made and take note of the scripture of Luke 20:34-38.
A metaphysical impossibility cannot be considered a plausible option. Thus, it's not a historical fact and no amount of special pleading will make it one. Also, a biological form acting in ways that we dont currently experience does not prove the existence of a substance that can cause the emergence of wholly distinct existents.
As Christians, we need to be honest about many of our doctrines. It's all a matter of faith. We have no scientific proof. We have archeological evidence to support general historicity, but we cannot prove miracles or doctrines scientifically. And the Bible has contradictions and scientific inaccuracies. It was written long before science. We do have a powerful ethical system if we will abide by it.
Since verifiable and credible evidence is absent, one needs to revert to faith to "explain away" the lack of the former. This is known as apologetics, and this is what WLC is all about and only is about. When you cut out all his meaningless and meandering word salad, all that's left is "the resurrection actually happened ... for so say the gospels".
When prominent atheist and agnostic historians like Gerd Ludemann and Bart Ehrman claim that Jesus was a real person who was really crucified to death, how do you think they came to that conclusion? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Jesus being a real person and being resurrected are two totally unrelated things. WLC said he wasn't a real person, he was a supernatural one, so the materialistic evidence claim doesn't apply to him. Or maybe you weren't listening.
@@mirandahotspring4019 //Jesus being a real person and being resurrected are two totally unrelated things.// Wouldn't Jesus have to first be real in order to be resurrected? Those two things seem intimately related. //WLC said he wasn't a real person, he was a supernatural one, so the materialistic evidence claim doesn't apply to him.// He never said that. - RF Admin
No, as Christians we need to be honest. We cannot prove the resurrection of Jesus scientifically or archaeologically. It's a matter of faith. When we make claims that don't abide scrutiny, we only do damage to the credibility of our Faith.
These comments are wild. Craig can't handle the facts or the internet. Why make such a claim when you spend the entire video trying to redefine what is a fact.
All hinges on whether it is fact or fiction, objective reality or subjective wishfulness, true or false. 🫥 If Jesus truly did die and come back to life, and did so in the context of the claims he and others made about himself - especially in the context of the biblical storyline about a promised savior to come (with echoes of such a figure in other ancient myths and legends) - then there is hope for this wretched soul and hope for this wretched world. If not, then humanity (including this wretch) is left to itself, to its own devices, which is a fate worse than hopeless, for I reckon it worse than hopeless for mere organisms to have yearnings for the good, the true, and the beautiful that will remain forever unfulfilled than to have no such yearnings and live in ignorant bliss like the beasts. It is worse to have eternity in our hearts when eternity does not exist than not to have it in our hearts at all. It is like the Norse gods who heroically rise to battle the forces of evil on Ragnarok but who do so in utter futility, for in the end it is fated for evil and chaos and death to win. And there's nothing in us or in the universe or in life or in anything else that is not finite and limited, that can ever hope to achieve what's beyond the finite and what's without limitations, no matter how great and grand the achievement. No more so than a beetle has achieved in rolling its dung uphill. It may be an impressive beetle feat, but it is only a beetle feat. Ozymandias knew this well. Or as Roy Batty put it: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die." However, if Jesus lives again after he died like the Christians claim, then there is hope that there is a door knob we can turn to exit our constrained and crumbling and decaying corpse of a house. If not, then (as Jean Paul Sartre pointed out) there is no exit. Ultimately all will die when the house crumbles and collapses under its decrepitude. For my part, I hope it is true - I dearly hope - for we have no hope otherwise if we are on our own, if there is no once and future king.
Historians are NOT "prohibited or shackled by their methodology", dear WLC, they adhere to such method because otherwise whatever speculative assumption one makes would be considered as historical. King Arthur would become a personage that actually lived, just as a plethora of other fabled characters. "In a historians off time ... he is not bound by his methodology ... and so he can infere the resurrection as true from a philosophical point of view". Which is word salad for "let's imagine this fantastic event really took place" ... baffling ... how scholarly. But then again, only dishonest apologists can throw out rationality and sound methodology as if it doesn't apply during "off hours". Ridiculous.
@bamadrummer8920 there is simply no more evidence that a Godman named Jesus came back to life than there is a Snowman named Frosty put on a magic hat and began to dance around: Storybooks with magical characters.
@bamadrummer8920 Did you know that WLC signed an agreement of employment with Biola University that requires him to say what he is saying, or lose his job?
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Where exactly does WLC make a "historical argument" for the resurrection as historical FACT? Does he even know what the term fact means?
@@lizadowning4389 He explains that in the video. If you don't want to watch the video, here's a popular level article by Dr. Craig defending the historicity of the resurrection: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus. If you want a more detailed treatment, you can get his popular level book, The Son Rises. If you want even more detail, you can get his academic book, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg All he is saying is "The best explanation is that he resurrected." Really? I am simply not convinced. I think the only people convinced by this are the ones who are already predisposed to be convince. You Christians just sound like the Muslims who believe the prophet Muhammad rode to the moon on a winged horse. Both claims are equally as ridiculous. You can't just say it's a "miracle" when ZERO miracles have been demonstrated to be true to this day. There are a lot of stories predating the bible of resurrections, I bet you guys do not believe in any of them.
@@Penndreic That's not really an objection to any part of the argument, except perhaps a tacit assumption that miracles are impossible. But given the numerous reasons to believe that God in fact exists (arguments from contingency, the beginning of the universe, objective morality, consciousness, modal logic, fine tuning, etc.), then it seems quite plausible that miracles are possible. So, do you think that miracles are impossible? If so, why? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg I do not think miracles are possible since like I said there is zero evidence of miracles. None of the reasons you stated point to a god btw. Let’s take discuss a few points. Creation of the universe: a creator requires a creator so you are poisoning the well here. We do not know that the universe was created, you would have to prove that. It could just as well be eternal. Fine tuning: what exactly is “fine tuned”? Most of the universe is inhospitable for us. We have adapted to our environment not the other way around. Objective morality: there is no such thing. Your god can say do not kill in one sentence and say go kill all these people on the next sentence. The best argument I have heard justifying that said that “whatever god says to do is moral” which is laughably funny. What I’ve come to realize is that some people first and foremost want to believe. They then go around finding reasons to believe. It’s like the opposite of the scientific method. But hey, if it makes you feel better, go right ahead.
No, Daniel Davies, WLC's approach is not historical, it's apologetic and theological. Neither have anything to do with cautious and critical scholarship.
@@dodumichalcevski Matt 7:13 - "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. V.14- "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Not everyone will get to experience heaven, and seems as the majority won't. It sounds like you're well on your way to the wide gate. For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And the wages of sin is death. But Jesus paid the penalty for our sins on the cross. 1Cor 1:18- For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. You have but this lifetime to decide which gate. I truly hope you would accept Jesus's invitation to his banquet. I pray God shows you and your family his Grace, Mercy and Peace!
Practically all beliefs require a degree of faith. Faith is the bridge from evidence to commitment to a belief. Atheism requires faith. The idea that your mother loves you requires faith. The belief that a man named George Washington was the first US president requires faith.
@@brando3342 When you have verifiable evidence there's no need for "faith". Alas, since verifiable and credible evidence is absent, one needs to revert to faith to "explain away" the lack of the former. This is known as apologetics, and this is what WLC is all about and only is about. When you cut out all his meaningless and meandering word salad, all that's left is "the resurrection actually happened ... for so say the gospels".
@@brando3342 Than explain why exactly. If "literally everything is false", you'd have no problem demonstrating that. So go right ahead, show us how bright you are.
When you pointedly say "no it isnt", that means your view has no weight. He at least has points to make. You just say "no". Not picking sides but you gotta do better. Come up with some questions and look into it at least.
@joeb2588 iv followed these religious nonsense claims as a hobby 15 yrs it's not a historical fact the jeeeeeeeebus rose from the dead its a bunch of unproven claims...the empty tomb the witnesses the miracles being performed the virgin Birth etc its all nonsense unproven claims and assertions taken in by gullible fools and indoctrinated simple folk...the burden of proof is on the claimant and the evidence provided is very weak at best...prove me wrong what can anyone provide that proves this guy resurrected from the dead that I haven't heard before apart from post hoc assertions and unproven claims...
@joeb2588 I replied but my comment was deleted happens a lot on theist sites ...there's no good evidence for jesus rising from the dead its all claims and assertions...
@@ReasonableFaithOrg WLC has stated that there is a consensus among historians of the resurrection of Jesus. That is blatantly false. No such consensus exists.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg you should have asked him to provide a citation as the person making the extraordinary claim. That’s hard to do when confirmation bias is happening in real time….
@@skepticalbutopen4620 He has hundreds of citations in his published work. The consensus he's referring to is not with regard to the resurrection, but rather of the agreement on the historicity of the facts surrounding the resurrection, namely Jesus' death by crucifixion, the post-mortem appearances, and the sincere belief of Jesus' followers that he had risen from the dead. He then shows why the resurrection is the best explanation for these facts. Given this clarification, which if the historical facts do you deny, and why do you reject the resurrection as the best explanation of those facts? - RF Admin
It has been said of Jesus that "his body rose from the dead." What an absurdity conjured up by earthly minds! What need would Jesus have of an earthly body to continue existence in the afterlife? How could such a ridiculous MYTH and FALLACY persist even into the 21st century? It has been a measure of the lack of understanding of "Christians" that they have blindly accepted such a dogma to this very time. The TRUTH is: the disciples did not know that Jesus had secretly arranged with Joseph of Arimathea to take his (Jesus') body to Joseph's own unused tomb after Jesus' death, where Joseph would anoint Jesus' body according to custom before the sun set. Then, when darkness had fallen and the Sabbath was being observed by everyone in Jerusalem, assisted by 2 mounted trustworthy servants, Joseph would take Jesus' body secretly during the night, and by out of sight tracks during the day, to a mountain side outside Nazareth, in Galilee. There, further assisted by Jesus' family, if Joseph followed Jesus' directions, Joseph would find a small, hidden cave that had given Jesus shelter from storms and a refuge from people when Jesus was young, unhappy and rebellious, and at odds with the world. Joseph promised to find the cave from a map Jesus had given Joseph and to leave his (Jesus') body there after further embalming. Joseph would build up the small entrance to thoroughly block it from intruders. There, Jesus' body has rested, free from molestation.
I’m so glad you defeated Covid, Sir! I heard it was a close call. We will meet one fine day, but hopefully not any time soon because you are very much needed here on earth.
Let God be the Boss. None of us is needed if He decides differently
@15:50: Not only does the creed in 1 Cor. 15 refute the legendary hypothesis, it is also a good counter to the theory that Jesus’ body was thrown into a ditch or a common grave: “….he was buried” (1 Cor. 15:4a).
It only takes a single person, either in a leadership position or otherwise convincing a small group of people in a time full of superstition and mythohistory.
It really doesn’t counter legendary development or a mass grave. And we know legendary development can happen extremely fast, today as well as in ancient history. It was common practice of the time to embellish.
@@Tinesthia This interview in and of itself is a good example of legendary development. WLC claiming that "there is a general consensus among historians today, " etc, will leave believers in utter disbelief that we all don't believe. They will then repeat the same claim to others, and further embellished, to be sure.
The legendary development happens in the gospels in regards to how Jesus is said to be experienced post-resurrection. Just read Mark 16, Matthew 28, Luke 24 and John 20-21 in that order and you'll see the story evolving more fantastic over time.
Thank you God for blessing the world with such a thoughtful and eloquent intellectual. Bill, I am so grateful for your work.
Still no evidence for god
@@dodumichalcevski depends on what your definition of evidence is and what qualifies as such. Is this how you spend most of your time?
@@TheLOLSquad
Something that makes a statement or claim more likely
@@dodumichalcevski yes, and seeing that we have no explanation for the beginning of the universe or the origin of life and most likely never will, at least when it comes to the conception of the universe, I’d say the most likely conclusion is that an extremely intelligent creator is more likely than unlikely.
@@dodumichalcevski like the existence of an art piece implies the existence of an artist, the existence of the universe implies a creator.
“The resurrection of Jesus needs to be considered in the wider context…” Thank you for your insight!
Its a fairytale
Why do you write that? What is your rebuttal to William Lane Craig’s argument? @@dodumichalcevski
@@bryanasands
He has no evidence.
Just claims.
@@dodumichalcevski out of curiosity did you watch the entire video?
Here's a wider context to consider: Jesus predicted the Kingdom of Heaven on earth before some of his disciples died- it didn't happen. Paul links the resurrection of Jesus with the imminent resurrection and new age to dawn in his lifetime or thereabouts- it didn't happen. Shouldn't these failed prophecies be taken into consideration when asking whether or not there was an initial resurrection?
Mr. Craig says "Jews believed the resurrection only occurred after the end of the world"
Response: Paul and the earliest Christians believed they were living at the end of the world - see 1 Cor 10:11, Mt. 24:3. If they believed they were living in the end times then the resurrection was a necessary falling out of that end time expectation. So we can now see how the resurrection was expected per the historical context in which the earliest Christians found themselves. And this serves to rebut the apologetic that they would only believe Jesus has been "assumed into heaven" after his death. This is especially true if Jesus went around predicting his resurrection (like the gospels say)! There were also claims by some that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead - Mark 6:14-16 and that an ancient prophet had "arisen" - Luke 9:8. How could these people come to that conclusion if the idea of a single dying and rising figure before the end of the world didn't exist? Obviously, it did exist and it existed in the exsct same historical context of Jesus and his followers.
Mr. Craig also appeals to the fact that since Paul believed in the physical resurrection of the body, that it must follow that the appearances were physical. This is a non-sequitur as one could believe Jesus had been physically resurrected - due to background resurrection beliefs (Isa. 26:19) but also believe he didn't "appear" to anyone until after his exaltation to heaven, making the experiences visionary in nature i.e. not physical interactions with a resurrected corpse. Christian apologists cannot deny this scenario because they are committed to this happening in the case of Paul - 1 Cor 15:8, Acts 26:19.
Mt. 24 refers to the end of the age, not the end of the world. And, that's what happened at 70 A.D (it was the end of the Jewish Age). Also, it was written in 2 Thessalonians 2 that their gathering together with Jesus isn't imminent, and that the Son of Perdition has to appear first (read End Time Delusions for more info).
@@jab1289 End of the age/world is an end time event where the final judgment takes place - Mt. 13:36-43, Heb. 9:26-28. Chapter 24 refers to the "end" in verse 6 and 14. The Son of Man coming with angels is necessarily an end time event.
2 Thess was written in response to what Paul said about imminence in 1 Thess 4:15-17. In other words, the later author is 2 Thess is having to explain away the problem because Jesus didn't return like Paul said he would.
@@resurrectionnerd In 1 Thessalonians, he didn't say when that would take place, but that the people that will be there won't preceed those that died before. Also, the word in the Greek for world (Matthew 24:3) Is Aion, which means age. Jesus only came symbolically in Matthew 24, not literally (like at the end of the world).
@@jab1289 Paul includes himself in the "we" group who will still be alive when Jesus returns. Read the passage. I gave the surrounding context for aion. Read Mt. 13:36-43 where it coincides with the final judgment. It's the "end of the world" as they knew when it the Son of Man would return with angels, judge everyone and establish God's kingdom. This did not take place obviously and so the predictions were wrong.
Would you say the birth narrative of Alexander the Great are not the basis of the Christian virgin birth? Rather, Alex birth is based on Christs .Isiah 53 pre dates Alexander’s virgin birth by close to 300 yrs. Also, is it Isiah Again, concerning the young woman/ virgin giving birth. As for the Res, what do you think about Innana, circa 2000 B. C who was nailed to a tree I think. Osiris was raised from the dead arround the same time. Is there anything to the fact that Mr. O had protelysiers preaching throughout the Mediterranean world?
38:20
I don't understand this argument. Dr. Craig claims that there is no "realistic chance" that Jesus could have been taken down from the cross alive, because of the competence of the executioners. But if Jesus was indeed alive afterwards, he must have either not died or he transformed from being dead to being alive. But Dr. Craig hasn't explained why the chance of the dead Jesus becoming alive again is more realistic than the chance that the normal execution methods did not produce death in this case.
Jesus was scourged so badly before crucifixion that his bones were on display. His whole body, back, front and legs was scourged and covered in blood. They used Roman flags that ripped the flesh off. He would have lost so much blood even before crucifixion. And the Romans scourged him so badly to satiate the Jewish religious leaders who accused him of blasphemy. He was already close to death. It was enough to induce the onset of hypovolemic shock, when a person loses 20 percent or more of the body’s blood supply. They forced a crown of thorns onto his head. His face would have been covered in blood. Then he had to carry his heavy cross. It fell on him, crushed his chest, dislocated his arm and injured his right eye. He was then crucified by Roman soldiers who were expert at killing people. The nails went through his nerves and blood vessels causing excruciating pain. They pulled and dislocated his arms when nailing him. After he died, a soldier thrust a spear into his chest. The angle of the thrust would have likely pierced his heart. Certainly it went through his lungs. Blood and water came out of the wound. During the slow process of asphyxiation by which crucifixion kills, the victim suffocates to death. And the pericardial sac would have been engorged, and the right side of the heart enlarged. When water and blood came from the wound, they knew it indicated he was dead. The pericardial sac and the heart had been pierced. Another medical explanation is that Jesus had a haemothorax caused by chest trauma. Another is that he died from ruptured heart muscle.
But the Roman soldiers were expert at crucifixion and killing. Is it not more likely that they would have known when he was dead?
@@JCJNET We don’t know who the executioners were or their level of expertise. But even if they were experts, Craig has not demonstrated that the probability that they made a mistake or that they lied is less than the probability that Jesus came back to life after being dead.
@@Peter-qz8qs See the explanation on the Bart Ehrman site, HOW DID JESUS DIE? WHO KILLED HIM AND WHY? How did Jesus die? Jesus died on the cross not by loss of blood, but by suffocation, as the long cavity distended and he couldn’t longer breathe. Victims could suffer for days before the end came. And how many days Jesus was on the cross? His death, in fact, came quickly because he had been whipped to a pulp before the crucifixion.
@@JCJNET Okay. I just read that entire page. No where on that page is it demonstrated, nor does it cite anything which demonstrates that the probability that the executioners made a mistake or that they lied is less than the probability that Jesus came back to life after being dead.
If Jesus was a peasant carpenter “actually tecton?) born/from Nazareth then why would he have tomb in Jerusalem? Not hometown. Not where family from. Could his body taken to hometown after sabbath? Before others/disciple got there? Seems more plausible than (magical) supernatural event.
It wasn't his tomb. It belonged to Joseph of Arathamea, who was a wealthy follower.
👍🏽
And Islam denied resurrection Jesus Christ and only criticized Bible but never ancient history, why? Because can’t, is just to powerful the evidence, and yet the astonishing most of them not even christian
Demons all over trying to dismiss all they can Rebuke em’ Those who keep with the Holy Spirit will know the truth ❤ God bless you all who believe in the Blood Of JESUS 🙏
No such thing as demons.
@shaunT20 Amen ❤ To GOD be the GLORY!
God is real, and Jesus is Lord. It’s amazing how most NT Critics deny the resurrection on philosophical naturalism, and not history!
The NT is not history.It is imaginative literature.
@@oldpossum57 Why do you say that? You should really educate yourself more before speaking out of turn. Paul’s letters are 100% historical history, including the citing of early church creeds. The Gospels are well accepted by scholars as Ancient Biographies (mention real people, ancestry to public life, not romance novel, etc). Also they come within the same lifetime or within one generation of when they lived.
@@tc4878 They may be accepted by fundamentalist bible scholars as factual events, but these are blind to the problems the texts pose. T’épaulas is 20 years after, Mark 40 years after, Matt and Luke 60+ years after, John 70-80 years after. Even well-to-do, educated folks of the time were credulous, superstitious, and ignorant. The jesus cultists were insecure peasants, and largely completely illiterate. People like that make up stories.
If the events were true, many of them would have been duly noted in Roman sources, in contemporary documents by the Jews. But they are not. We have references to Christians existing (as noxious pests) in Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, but they tell us nothing about your jesus . To any non Christian, your jesus was as real as Mithras.
About seven of Paul’s letters are considered fairly trust-worthy. The others are not.
As an historian myself, I can tell you that this jesus character is pretty shadowy. We cannot trust the stories, because they come to us as having circulated a long time as oral folk tradition among the ignorant as superstitious If I told you I saw a 103 year old JFK driving past Dealey Plaza in Dallas on 2 November 2021, I hope you would not believe me. (Some qanon cultists do claim this.) So do not ask any one to believe physically-impossible miracles and resurrections from 2000 years ago.
For the choice is simple: either everything we know about physics, chemistry and biology is dead wrong, or some cultists made up a bunch of stories 2000 years ago. I will allow that there might be some true (not miraculous!) events in your NT, but we will never know which , because we have no independent sources.
What you seem unwilling to understand is that if we took the wild imaginings of your NT as fact, we would have to grant the same status to the wild imaginings of the Qur’an, and to the wild imaginings of the Book of Mormon (even though we know the sources Joseph Smith plagiarized to make it up).
You might believe in this stuff. I am sure generations of scholars took the stories as factually accurate on faith. They never questioned their scriptures. But as modern historians, we can’t trust them.
For example, the founding myth of Israel is the story o Exodus. You are probably familiar with it. For millennia, people assumed it was factual. But for decades now, the professional historians and ar+geologist even in Israel admit it is all made up. There was no Exodus, there was no mass slavery in Egypt, the was no parting of the Red Sea, there was no wandering in the desert for 40 years, there was no genocide (thank goodness) of the Canaanites. The Israelites originated as a tribe in south Canaan.
If you want to learn, this is an excellent time. There are lots of books, videos, podcasts.
Actually the majority of historians not see the resurrection as fact. So not sure where you got this idea.
@@oldpossum57I love it when folks just drop a statement making a claim and offer no defence or evidence at all. And yes, just like you, I will require unequivocal proof that it's "imaginative literature". Scientific proof, that is.
4:00 _Its not "an extraordinary singular event"_
Resurrection is an eschatological fact, Jesus was not the first and in order to be _a Son of Man_ it must have happened to Jesus prior to this second eschatological event, Resurrection is commonplace but Ascension is the key event.
Re: 17:15
I pity anyone who is defending the resurrection as having great evidence and then presents this.
Paul, cited a church statement of faith/creed, that stated a few named witnesses, and 500 unnamed witnesses, therefor these events actually took place.
If this evidence was presented in support of something they don’t already believe, would they still think it’s good evidence?
Say a historically known foreigner cites a tribal creed that several named elders and 500 unlisted members of the tribe witnessed their leader communing with the Great Bear Spirit and it came down and granted him the strength of ten men. Would you now call this event a historical fact?
If you sign a statement of faith prior to looking at evidence, if you take donations from people who have signed statements of faith, it becomes nearly impossible for you to be objective because you are have assumed the conclusion or are pressured to support the donators conclusion and are going to try and make everything fit that assumption subconsciously if not consciously.
As a Catholic, I have to apologize for Davis's appalling lack of manners. If you're lucky enough to talk to one of the preeminent theologians alive today, you do not interrupt him, talk over him, or lecture him about the particularities of your own beliefs.
I'm sorry, Dr Craig. We're not all so ill-bred.
Boy, you aren’t kidding. He started out all right, but later on…😢
He should talk with Bishop Robert Barron. Bishop Barron is a consummate professional.
@@gybx4094 He did, back in 2018, but I'd love to hear them talk again :) It was a good conversation.
Dr Craig is well known as Low Bar Bill in secular philosophical circles for having an epistemological bar down to his toes. If this is a leading theologian, then religion is over, as it should be, because it is anachronistic in the 21st century. Christianity is an absurdity.
Let's get up to date, in the Eucharist we hear *This is my body, given for you* this Divine truth played out at every Mass is the testimony of God the Son that in the Sacrament a greater truth is present, Christ present in the Eucharist.
According to Paul, Jesus was raised spiritually, not bodily. In 1 Cor 15:4, he used the Greek word egeiro, which means to awaken. It’s the same word used in Matthew 8:25, when Jesus was asleep in the boat during the storm and was awakened (egeiro) by the disciples. If Paul was meaning a bodily resurrection, he would have used the Greek word anastasis, not egeiro.
Matthew used the Greek word optonamai (or optomai) to describe Jesus appearing (origami) at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:3). The text itself says the transfiguration was a vision, not real (Matthew 17:9). Paul used the same word to optinamai to refer to Jesus appearing to various people after his death.
The tradition of appearances to others that Paul was exposed to was a tradition of spiritual appearances. Paul himself never met Jesus bodily, but only in a vision.
John 20:27 Then saith he (JESUS) to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
Luke 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.
24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?
24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
24:40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
24:41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
24:42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
24:43 And he took it, and did eat before them.
@@jomdizon6930 the gospels were penned two decades after Paul and Peter’s letters. They’re not the oldest resurrection tradition. They’re inventions, along with their miracle-working god-man Jesus. Paul and Peter’s letters are the oldest tradition of resurrection and they clearly teach a spiritual resurrection.
@@jomdizon6930 the gospels were penned two decades after Paul and Peter’s letters. They’re not the oldest resurrection tradition. They’re inventions, along with their miracle-working god-man Jesus. Paul and Peter’s letters are the oldest tradition of resurrection and they clearly teach a spiritual resurrection.
can anyone possibly help determine if vatican folio #140 still exists. it is an aramaic codex of the 4 gospels transcribed by order of the 3rd bishop of edessa with a colophon from the 18th canun prior, of the year of the greeks 389 (78 ad) transported by joseph assemani between 1715-1718 from the chaldean patriarchate in baghdad to the vatican library. stolen by napoleon. whereabouts unknown. louvre, bibliotheque nationale, french archives possible locations. permanent loss possible.
to wit: ua-cam.com/video/I94Ky6tDxEI/v-deo.html
Liar, Lord, Lunatic, or Legend
Naturalists can simply go with legend 🤗
Liar best suits him
So many unsupported assertions. People just say things as fact, present no argument or evidence, and pretend like that settles the issue. Whatever you pick from those four choices, it requires significant explanation. WLC gave his argument. Where is yours?
I am the greater mind, the one who designed the Jesus legend
@@channingb2577 Well ideas are known true by evidence, not absence of alternative hypothesis.
* Craig's position doesn't have sufficient evidence, due to the nature of the claims involving things we've never seen before (miracles, resurrections, etc)
* So without any alternate position, Craig's position isn't reasonable; it isn't rational.
* But we also have people like Paulogia here on YT who thankfully provided a much stronger hypothesis in the vid, _"NO RESURRECTION REQUIRED! How Christianity Probably Began."_
To me the abundance of scammers on Earth strongly indicates the idea was spread by people who are some mix of (a) scammers and (b) people legitimately convinced by the scam.
The idea even at face value is laughable, right? We're talking about a god said to be all-knowing who chose to come to earth as human (knowing humans regularly scam other humans!) and did all human-fakeable things (faith-healing, misdirection (feeding the multitudes), impersonating the dead, etc).
Think about that.
Really think about it.
If you're playing a videogame and you know for a fact the sentient inhabitants called "Sims" regularly scam each other, do you show up as a Sim? You'd have to have put _zero_ thought into your strategy if that's how you approached your communication, right? Yet this god is said to be "all-knowing".
Lying legendary lunatic does it for me.
I was trained by God, I learned the secrets of the Bible, Jesus, Spiritual Entities, I am now the most gifted person on Earth, I am now seeking aid , society will not help solve this so God had to step in
Jesus indeed rose from the dead!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣☺☺☺
Zombie nonsense.
Sure if you want to just play make believe
This interview itself is a good example of how the resurrection fable spread. Notice that since WLC has a sympathetic ear, he states that there "is a general consensus among historians today that Jesus of Nazareth came on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority. That is to say the authority to stand and speak in God's place...He claimed that in himself the kingdom of God was breaking into human history..." WLC prefaces this claim by saying the resurrection must be considered in this context. This is highly misleading, and I don't think WLC would say this in a debate. Critical scholarship of the New Testament has cast doubt on exactly what Jesus said and taught, what he believed his role to be, etc. But there certainly is no "general consensus among historians" that Jesus went around talking as portrayed in the Gospel of John. I'm not saying WLC is disingenuous, but religious fervor has moved him to overstate the case.
Furthermore, we begin not with the "facts" of the empty tomb and appearances. We begin, first and foremost, with the claims of death, burial, resurrection and appearances. This is an important distinction. If we take things in chronological order, our first claim is from Paul, 20 years after the death of Jesus. The empty tomb is not mentioned anywhere by Paul. First off, it's interesting that Paul makes no distinction between the appearance of Jesus to others and to him. But the appearance of Jesus to Paul is described in visionary terms, certainly not bodily. Still, our first order of business is to evaluate Paul's claim- not to try and explain this experience (and assuming others, like Peter and James, claimed to have had an experience, their claims are also where scrutiny begins- then the experiences). Is there anything in Paul's own writings that would call into question his character and/or mental and physical health? If so, that taints the veracity of his claims.
WLC is trying to start the race ahead of the "facts."
REINCARNATION
Look in the Last chapter of Job where God granted him an extra 150 years since he was an old man at this time and a lifetime was considered *threescore years and ten* it is obvious that God being gracious would not allow Job to continue on way past his old age for another 150 years, give us a break, if Job was upset about the existential catastrophe he had just endured he would have been even more incensed at 150 more years in a life as living corpse. A life means a mother father family and the prospect of opportunities.
Follow through the post I have made and take note of the scripture of Luke 20:34-38.
Read Resurrection by Dale Allison.It's not a fact
www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/dale-allison-on-jesus-empty-tomb-his-post-mortem-appearances-and-the-origin. - RF Admin
A metaphysical impossibility cannot be considered a plausible option.
Thus, it's not a historical fact and no amount of special pleading will make it one. Also, a biological form acting in ways that we dont currently experience does not prove the existence of a substance that can cause the emergence of wholly distinct existents.
WLC just prattles word salad about it as usual.
As Christians, we need to be honest about many of our doctrines. It's all a matter of faith. We have no scientific proof. We have archeological evidence to support general historicity, but we cannot prove miracles or doctrines scientifically. And the Bible has contradictions and scientific inaccuracies. It was written long before science. We do have a powerful ethical system if we will abide by it.
Since verifiable and credible evidence is absent, one needs to revert to faith to "explain away" the lack of the former. This is known as apologetics, and this is what WLC is all about and only is about.
When you cut out all his meaningless and meandering word salad, all that's left is "the resurrection actually happened ... for so say the gospels".
When prominent atheist and agnostic historians like Gerd Ludemann and Bart Ehrman claim that Jesus was a real person who was really crucified to death, how do you think they came to that conclusion? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Jesus being a real person and being resurrected are two totally unrelated things. WLC said he wasn't a real person, he was a supernatural one, so the materialistic evidence claim doesn't apply to him. Or maybe you weren't listening.
@@mirandahotspring4019 //Jesus being a real person and being resurrected are two totally unrelated things.//
Wouldn't Jesus have to first be real in order to be resurrected? Those two things seem intimately related.
//WLC said he wasn't a real person, he was a supernatural one, so the materialistic evidence claim doesn't apply to him.//
He never said that. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg So you didn't listen!
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Son of god is a supernatural claim!
Oh please stop. This content is just hilarious- had me laughing all day - it was presented has being real which is pure comedy
What part of the argument do you reject and why? - RF Admin
Yes please explain yourself.
No, as Christians we need to be honest. We cannot prove the resurrection of Jesus scientifically or archaeologically. It's a matter of faith.
When we make claims that don't abide scrutiny, we only do damage to the credibility of our Faith.
@@gybx4094 Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth but a shortcut to self-deception.
These comments are wild. Craig can't handle the facts or the internet.
Why make such a claim when you spend the entire video trying to redefine what is a fact.
All hinges on whether it is fact or fiction, objective reality or subjective wishfulness, true or false. 🫥
If Jesus truly did die and come back to life, and did so in the context of the claims he and others made about himself - especially in the context of the biblical storyline about a promised savior to come (with echoes of such a figure in other ancient myths and legends) - then there is hope for this wretched soul and hope for this wretched world.
If not, then humanity (including this wretch) is left to itself, to its own devices, which is a fate worse than hopeless, for I reckon it worse than hopeless for mere organisms to have yearnings for the good, the true, and the beautiful that will remain forever unfulfilled than to have no such yearnings and live in ignorant bliss like the beasts. It is worse to have eternity in our hearts when eternity does not exist than not to have it in our hearts at all. It is like the Norse gods who heroically rise to battle the forces of evil on Ragnarok but who do so in utter futility, for in the end it is fated for evil and chaos and death to win.
And there's nothing in us or in the universe or in life or in anything else that is not finite and limited, that can ever hope to achieve what's beyond the finite and what's without limitations, no matter how great and grand the achievement. No more so than a beetle has achieved in rolling its dung uphill. It may be an impressive beetle feat, but it is only a beetle feat. Ozymandias knew this well. Or as Roy Batty put it: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."
However, if Jesus lives again after he died like the Christians claim, then there is hope that there is a door knob we can turn to exit our constrained and crumbling and decaying corpse of a house. If not, then (as Jean Paul Sartre pointed out) there is no exit. Ultimately all will die when the house crumbles and collapses under its decrepitude.
For my part, I hope it is true - I dearly hope - for we have no hope otherwise if we are on our own, if there is no once and future king.
Historians are NOT "prohibited or shackled by their methodology", dear WLC, they adhere to such method because otherwise whatever speculative assumption one makes would be considered as historical.
King Arthur would become a personage that actually lived, just as a plethora of other fabled characters.
"In a historians off time ... he is not bound by his methodology ... and so he can infere the resurrection as true from a philosophical point of view".
Which is word salad for "let's imagine this fantastic event really took place" ... baffling ... how scholarly. But then again, only dishonest apologists can throw out rationality and sound methodology as if it doesn't apply during "off hours".
Ridiculous.
About as much as Frosty the Snowman putting on a magic and dancing all around is a historical fact
@rs7656 explain your assertion. How is Dr. Craig wrong? Sounds like merely your opinion.
@bamadrummer8920 there is simply no more evidence that a Godman named Jesus came back to life than there is a Snowman named Frosty put on a magic hat and began to dance around: Storybooks with magical characters.
@bamadrummer8920 Did you know that WLC signed an agreement of employment with Biola University that requires him to say what he is saying, or lose his job?
@@rs7656 Prove it!
@@rs7656 Are you claiming Jesus and his apostles weren’t historical?
Historical fact! hahahahaha
a fact? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
No it’s not.
What part of the argument do you reject? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Where exactly does WLC make a "historical argument" for the resurrection as historical FACT? Does he even know what the term fact means?
@@lizadowning4389 He explains that in the video. If you don't want to watch the video, here's a popular level article by Dr. Craig defending the historicity of the resurrection: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus. If you want a more detailed treatment, you can get his popular level book, The Son Rises. If you want even more detail, you can get his academic book, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Buy my stuff...
You didn't answer the question to begin with.
Keep telling yourselves it’s a fact and maybe you’ll make yourselves believe it after a while.
What part of the argument do you reject and why? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg All he is saying is "The best explanation is that he resurrected." Really? I am simply not convinced. I think the only people convinced by this are the ones who are already predisposed to be convince. You Christians just sound like the Muslims who believe the prophet Muhammad rode to the moon on a winged horse. Both claims are equally as ridiculous. You can't just say it's a "miracle" when ZERO miracles have been demonstrated to be true to this day. There are a lot of stories predating the bible of resurrections, I bet you guys do not believe in any of them.
@@Penndreic That's not really an objection to any part of the argument, except perhaps a tacit assumption that miracles are impossible. But given the numerous reasons to believe that God in fact exists (arguments from contingency, the beginning of the universe, objective morality, consciousness, modal logic, fine tuning, etc.), then it seems quite plausible that miracles are possible. So, do you think that miracles are impossible? If so, why? - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg Are you stating that there are _sound_ arguments concluding that the god of Christianity is a reality?
@@ReasonableFaithOrg I do not think miracles are possible since like I said there is zero evidence of miracles. None of the reasons you stated point to a god btw. Let’s take discuss a few points.
Creation of the universe: a creator requires a creator so you are poisoning the well here. We do not know that the universe was created, you would have to prove that. It could just as well be eternal.
Fine tuning: what exactly is “fine tuned”? Most of the universe is inhospitable for us. We have adapted to our environment not the other way around.
Objective morality: there is no such thing. Your god can say do not kill in one sentence and say go kill all these people on the next sentence. The best argument I have heard justifying that said that “whatever god says to do is moral” which is laughably funny.
What I’ve come to realize is that some people first and foremost want to believe. They then go around finding reasons to believe. It’s like the opposite of the scientific method. But hey, if it makes you feel better, go right ahead.
No, Daniel Davies, WLC's approach is not historical, it's apologetic and theological. Neither have anything to do with cautious and critical scholarship.
Yeah
Its not
Explain why then.
@@Godsambassador3
No evidence
@@dodumichalcevski Matt 7:13 -
"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. V.14- "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Not everyone will get to experience heaven, and seems as the majority won't. It sounds like you're well on your way to the wide gate. For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And the wages of sin is death.
But Jesus paid the penalty for our sins on the cross.
1Cor 1:18- For the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.
You have but this lifetime to decide which gate. I truly hope you would accept Jesus's invitation to his banquet. I pray God shows you and your family his Grace, Mercy and Peace!
Just because you want it to be real, doesn't make it a historical fact. Y'all need to learn a new word here in 2024: "emotion".
Same WLC world salad. No more “evidence “ than Mormonism, Islam, etc. It’s faith not evidence.
False, but also faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive.
Practically all beliefs require a degree of faith. Faith is the bridge from evidence to commitment to a belief. Atheism requires faith. The idea that your mother loves you requires faith. The belief that a man named George Washington was the first US president requires faith.
@@brando3342 When you have verifiable evidence there's no need for "faith".
Alas, since verifiable and credible evidence is absent, one needs to revert to faith to "explain away" the lack of the former. This is known as apologetics, and this is what WLC is all about and only is about.
When you cut out all his meaningless and meandering word salad, all that's left is "the resurrection actually happened ... for so say the gospels".
@@lizadowning4389 Literally everything you just said is false LOL
@@brando3342 Than explain why exactly. If "literally everything is false", you'd have no problem demonstrating that.
So go right ahead, show us how bright you are.
No it isn't grow up..
When you pointedly say "no it isnt", that means your view has no weight. He at least has points to make. You just say "no". Not picking sides but you gotta do better. Come up with some questions and look into it at least.
@joeb2588 iv followed these religious nonsense claims as a hobby 15 yrs it's not a historical fact the jeeeeeeeebus rose from the dead its a bunch of unproven claims...the empty tomb the witnesses the miracles being performed the virgin Birth etc its all nonsense unproven claims and assertions taken in by gullible fools and indoctrinated simple folk...the burden of proof is on the claimant and the evidence provided is very weak at best...prove me wrong what can anyone provide that proves this guy resurrected from the dead that I haven't heard before apart from post hoc assertions and unproven claims...
@joeb2588 I replied but my comment was deleted happens a lot on theist sites ...there's no good evidence for jesus rising from the dead its all claims and assertions...
@@davegonnaway6007 I call BS. Step up or sit down.
@channingb2577 let's do this what evidence do you have?...
Total rubbish….
What part of the argument do you reject and why? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg WLC has stated that there is a consensus among historians of the resurrection of Jesus. That is blatantly false. No such consensus exists.
@@skepticalbutopen4620 Please provide a citation. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg you should have asked him to provide a citation as the person making the extraordinary claim. That’s hard to do when confirmation bias is happening in real time….
@@skepticalbutopen4620 He has hundreds of citations in his published work. The consensus he's referring to is not with regard to the resurrection, but rather of the agreement on the historicity of the facts surrounding the resurrection, namely Jesus' death by crucifixion, the post-mortem appearances, and the sincere belief of Jesus' followers that he had risen from the dead. He then shows why the resurrection is the best explanation for these facts. Given this clarification, which if the historical facts do you deny, and why do you reject the resurrection as the best explanation of those facts? - RF Admin
It has been said of Jesus that "his body rose from the dead." What an absurdity conjured up by earthly minds!
What need would Jesus have of an earthly body to continue existence in the afterlife?
How could such a ridiculous MYTH and FALLACY persist even into the 21st century? It has been a measure of the lack of understanding of "Christians" that they have blindly accepted such a dogma to this very time.
The TRUTH is: the disciples did not know that Jesus had secretly arranged with Joseph of Arimathea to take his (Jesus') body to Joseph's own unused tomb after Jesus' death, where Joseph would anoint Jesus' body according to custom before the sun set. Then, when darkness had fallen and the Sabbath was being observed by everyone in Jerusalem, assisted by 2 mounted trustworthy servants, Joseph would take Jesus' body secretly during the night, and by out of sight tracks during the day, to a mountain side outside Nazareth, in Galilee. There, further assisted by Jesus' family, if Joseph followed Jesus' directions, Joseph would find a small, hidden cave that had given Jesus shelter from storms and a refuge from people when Jesus was young, unhappy and rebellious, and at odds with the world. Joseph promised to find the cave from a map Jesus had given Joseph and to leave his (Jesus') body there after further embalming. Joseph would build up the small entrance to thoroughly block it from intruders. There, Jesus' body has rested, free from molestation.