Also in addition James did not believe in Jesus being the Messiah until he saw him raised from the dead. It’s only then that he totally believed in Jesus and was willing to die in his belief
The Bible is not evidence that the Bible is true. If I write a book, and in that book I claim that everything in my book is absolutely true now and forever, would my words make it so? As for Josephus (and any other historian of the time) many scholars have concluded that any mention of the Jesus cult is interpolation. And besides, historians are no more reliable than the writers of a silly book about their imaginary "God".
*A Question for Christians* Christians claim that there is only one true god. This one and true god is the god of the bible. Jesus is the son of this one true god, but Jesus is one and the same as the god of the bible. After all there are not two gods, are there? Add to this the holy spirit, and now we have the Trinity, 3 entities in one comprising the one true god. So whether we call it god, or Jesus, we are talking about the one and only entity that is god. Thus having been said, we look at the deeds of this one true god (Jesus). This god, Jesus, drowned almost all the people of earth including millions of infants and babies, burned two cities full of children, cast plagues on entire nations murdering thousands of babies and children, ordered genocide for entire tribes, but allowed the young virgins to live and made them available for mass rape. Are we still talking about the one true god? If yes, does this god have a split personality, one good side and one evil side? Is the good side unaware of the actions of the evil side? The question is: Why do Christians worship and pray to such a genocidal maniac? I would love to have an answer.
the shroud of turin is a fraud too, just like the rest of the bible nonsense. Curiosu how the bible itself says that there were multiple cloths, and they were wrapped around the body, not folded over like a taco.
That is all based on the text, a totally Circular Argument and Begging the Question. He is saying "New Testament critics today" like if that makes the story true.
Your point about circular reasoning misunderstands the methods used by historians, including New Testament critics, to analyze ancient texts. Scholars-both Christian and secular-do not assume the New Testament is true; instead, they apply historical criteria to determine which elements are likely historical. For example, in 'The Resurrection of Jesus', William Lane Craig demonstrates that historians evaluate texts using principles like: 1. Multiple Attestation: Events recorded by multiple independent sources are more likely historical. Jesus’ crucifixion is attested in the Gospels, Tacitus (Roman historian), and Josephus (Jewish historian). 2. Embarrassment: Details that would be embarrassing or counterproductive to the authors are unlikely to be fabricated. The Gospels report that women (low-status witnesses in 1st-century Judea) discovered the empty tomb. 3. Early Testimony: The closer a text is written to the events, the less time there is for myth to develop. Paul’s letters (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:3-8) date to within 5-10 years of Jesus' death and record early claims of His resurrection. This is how modern historians, including skeptics like Bart Ehrman (an agnostic), approach the New Testament-not as circular reasoning but as historical analysis of ancient documents, the same way they treat other writings like those of Tacitus or Pliny the Younger. The consensus, regardless of faith, affirms certain facts: Jesus lived, was crucified, and His followers sincerely believed they saw Him alive afterward. The question isn't whether this 'makes the story true' but whether these facts warrant an explanation-one the resurrection hypothesis best accounts for.
@@fredsalfa Paul never met Jesus, so how is anything he says even relevant as to the question of what really happened regarding the events in question? Scholars claim that the 4 gospels were NOT written by the apostles they are named after, thus, no eyewitness reports in the Bible. I'll even grant your facts: #1 A person likely named Jesus (or whatever his name was in Aramaic) lived at the time and place in question. #2 A person named Jesus was crucified (A common method of execution at the time. Lots of people not named Jesus were likely crucified and lots of them suffered horribly too. Being crucified, in and of itself, does not automatically make this Jesus fellow special). #3 The followers of his cult were highly motivated to believe that he would come back from the dead, since he said he WOULD be resurrected, and implied in no uncertain terms that he was "God" or "the Son of God", and that he had co-equal power with this "God" fellow (supposedly, since we don't really know what he said because the anonymous and decades later writers of the 4 gospels had only hearsay evidence of what he said. And don't forget that in all his reported teachings he never says anything approaching, "You, my apostles, should write down all these things I say, compile them in a book, call that book "Holy" so everyone will be impressed, then worship that book as the one and only revealed word of God", did he?). They BELIEVED with a (let's face it) fanatical fervor (You know, like the small minority of fanatically fervent believers in every OTHER religion who ALSO feel that their religion is the one and only TRUE one, AND are willing to kill or die for this belief?) So, your statement that these followers "sincerely believed they saw him alive afterwards" is almost certainly a "fact" (as near as we can ascertain) BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAPPENED! And yes, whether or not the story is true IS THE QUESTION! I submit that your conclusion that the "resurrection hypothesis" is the best explanation is not warranted., but thanks for admitting that it's only a hypothesis. I have a better "explanation". The apostles and other followers of this cult (who are like millions of people throughout history who have died for lies) hallucinated or imagined what they desperately wanted to be true.
*Why the Resurrectionof Jesus Cannot be True?* According to Christian dogma, God (Jesus) is all knowing. If a being is all knowing, he will already know all the events of the future in advance. God (Jesus), who has free will, already knows his own future decisions. How can a being have a free will and already know every decision he will make in the future? That is an enormous contradiction. He either has free will (and can change his mind) or already knows every future decision he will make; he cannot do both. And on the resurrection, Jesus (all knowing) knew always that he would be resurrected. So where is the sacrifice for the redemption of all humans? He did not really give his life, since he knew exactly that he will resurrect himself. At best, he lost half of a weekend. Not a real sacrifice, is it? Making these absurd claims is how Christians play tennis without a net.
Your comment raises an interesting objection, and it’s worth looking at it carefully. First, sacrifice and suffering are not diminished by knowledge of the outcome. For example, if a soldier knowingly throws himself on a grenade to save his friends, the fact that he expects his actions to save others does not make his death any less sacrificial or his pain any less real. The same principle applies here: Jesus’ foreknowledge of the resurrection doesn’t negate the physical, emotional, and psychological torment He experienced leading to and on the cross. Historical sources-Christian and non-Christian-agree that crucifixion was one of the most excruciating and humiliating forms of execution. Second, regarding the historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection claims: Virtually all serious historians, including secular ones, agree on three core facts: 1. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate. 2. His followers genuinely believed they had seen Him alive after His death. 3. The explosive rise of Christianity cannot be explained apart from these events. These facts are supported by historians like Bart Ehrman (agnostic), Gerd Lüdemann (atheist), and others who reject supernatural claims but acknowledge that something significant happened to Jesus’ followers that radically transformed them. Third, the resurrection claim is not about Jesus ‘resurrecting Himself,’ but rather about His followers interpreting it as vindication of His sacrificial death. Even skeptics like Bart Ehrman admit that the disciples believed they had encountered the risen Jesus-whether hallucination, misinterpretation, or otherwise. The debate is not about whether the claims happened but rather how to explain them. Lastly, on omniscience and free will: foreknowledge does not eliminate the reality of choice. If a fireman enters a burning building, knowing he might save others but die in the process, his awareness doesn’t make his bravery or risk any less real. In short, while you may reject the supernatural claims, the historical evidence and the philosophy of sacrifice suggest that the resurrection claim deserves to be taken seriously, even as a hypothesis. To dismiss it as ‘a lost weekend’ overlooks the immense suffering Jesus endured and the revolutionary impact of His followers’ belief that He had conquered death.
@@fredsalfa Nice canned propaganda (I have seen this copied comment many times). Simple question, and let's see what your answer is: The bible claims many thousands of eyewitnesses to Jesus, observing miracles, resurrection, etc.. Can you name a single EYEWITNESS (outside the bible, which was compiled in 325 CE) who mentions one word about Jesus? Even a single secular writer or historian will do.
@@maylingng4107 Have you not heard him mentioning Josephus who was jew and not a Christian, who was historian and colaborator to Romans, mentioning Jesus?
Reason and faith are opposites. If you really had evidence (you don't) you wouldn't need faith. Like the brilliant Mark Twain said: "Faith is believin' what you know ain't so".
If you are going to define "faith" as "blind belief", well then of course. Fortunately, as a Christian, I take "faith" to be synonymous to the word "trust", which isnt necessarily blind. (Ps: I do have evidence)
@@maylingng4107 I said I have evidence but did not provide it because the commenter above stated that Christians do not have evidence without explaining how he/she knows that. Claims without warrant deserve responses without warrant. And again, I do not define faith as blind belief. I define faith as trust, and trust is not necessarily unreasonable. But If you want me to play by your dictionary, then fine, I do not have "faith", as I aim to base my belief on evidence.
@@ir0nic303 You wrote: "(Ps: I do have evidence)" So I take it you just lied, because you have no evidence, nobody does. Faith is definitely not trust. Trust is based on experience that something is real because it was shown to be real previously. None of religion or religious faith has been shown to be real at anytime, therefore trust is not warranted.
@ Respectfully, it seems to me that apologetics cheapens faith. It reduces God from a subject into a mere object of philosophical debate... and miracles into "provable" phenomena in order to make Christianity more palatable for 21st century, scientifically-minded people. Does a person's salvation really depend on how "convincing" the apologist is? Would you be willing to address this question in a future video?
@@FlaviusBrosephusYou have a bit of a point as it pertains to trying to conform Christianity with the modern claims of historical science. For example, Craig and others do this with their views on Genesis. As a result, in the ash heap is left a good portion of book of Genesis. However, having faith, i.e., that which we have good reasons to believe is true is a reasonable faith. I don't believe we are asked to exercise a blind faith. These 'reasons' are what Craig and others try to provide in the area of apologetics.
@ There are many brilliant Christians (Kierkegaard being my favorite) who have made compelling cases against the enterprise of apologetics. Perhaps you haven't thought deeply enough about Dr. Craig's "evidentialist" approach? I am open-minded to hear what Dr. Craid would have to say about this tho...
WLC lays out not a single line oof evidence for Jesus's resurrection or for Jesus's existence. Answer this WLC: Can you list a single eyewitness to Jesus (outside the lies in the bible, which was assembled in 325 CE) who mentions Jesus - even a single word? Any historian or writer EYEWITNESS will do!
It appears you've been deceived about the dating of the Bible. Even atheist New Testament scholars date the writing of all of the various books of the New Testament from 20-80 years after the death of Jesus, with some information in those books (such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-5) dating to within 2-5 years after his death. Not to mention the fact that we have actual fragments of the Bible dating to before 325 AD. Moreover, Luke claimed to have interviewed eyewitnesses for his information, and all scholars recognize Luke as a credible historian. The book of Acts (written by Luke) contains over 80 archaeologically confirmed facts. Your comment presupposes that the other writers were not themselves eyewitnesses. What reason do you have for that position? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Nope! You are ignorant of history. At the council of Nicaea it was decided (by show of hands) which of the more than dozen gospels to include in the bible, and which to exclude. Ever wonder why so many were excluded? The several that were excluded because they contradicted the 4 that was included (and they contained a different or no Jesus stories). How convenient was that? It just shows the fakery afoot. Nobody knows who the gospel writers were. All we know that they were anonymous Greeks who never set foot in Judea. The names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were invented by the Greek bishop, Irenaeus in 170 CE and inserted into the gospels. Also, the evidence that they never met Jesus is clear from their own writings. All gospels are written in a third person narrative.... there is no texts as "I saw.. we have seen... etc." No historian recognizes the 4 alleged writers as historically legitimate. The bible is church propaganda. Can you provide a single piece of evidence that makes any bible story true? Take your choice (The Flood, Exodus, etc. ).
I believe the other "gospels" were excluded because they weren't considered reliable sources as they were written much later after Jesus' life and death. The latest gospel, the book of John, is thought to have been written around 90 - 100 AD (60 - 70 years after Jesus' death). The earliest (partial) manuscript we have of the book of John is dated to 125 - 150 AD. The Gospel of Mark is thought to have been written as early as 50 AD, only 20 years after the death of Jesus. As for Iraneus, he is one of the first peoples to organize the gospels into what would become the New Testament. The gospels names were most likely attributed to them prior to this. The Christian bishop, Papias, referenced Matthew and Mark by name as the authors of their respective gospels around 120 - 140 AD.
@@dbnation35 *Historicity of Jesus* There is no evidence that the biblical Jesus ever existed. The virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrections are the foundational dogma of the Christian religions; no evidence exists for any of that. That a man (rabbi, minister, priest or a hobo of his day with similar name lived, is possible, but that would not serve Christianity. What about the thousands of writings and claims from many religious historians? They are serving their faith and are not interested in facts of history. Is it possible that not a single eyewitness to Jesus mention a single word about Jesus? No it is not possible, if he really existed and performed those miracles. What about the contemporaries, writers and historians in the early first century? There were more than a dozen of those around Jerusalem and the Middle East. Nobody mentioned witnessing the birth, trial and crucifixion of Jesus or the graves opening and the dead walking around the city. If you are tempted by the 4 Gospels, then you should know that these were written by anonymous Greeks living in Greece having never met Jesus, just hearing the folk tales. The 4 did not have names, and we do not know who they were or what they saw or did not see. The Greek bishop, Irenaeus invented the four names and inserted them into the gospels in 170 C.E. Did you ever ask why the other dozen or so gospels were excluded from the bible? The answer is, they were excluded because they contradicted the four gospels that were included. Very convenient. It should also be noted, that the bible was and I still being revised. Several versions are in use today. For those perpetuating the Jesus propaganda I would like to ask; (1) Do you believe that the prophet Muhammad split the moon in half and rode a winged horse (buraq)? Well, there are thousands of written confirmations/writings and 1.6 billion Muslims claim it so. (2) Do you believe that Joseph Smith received god’s message on golden tablets from the angel Moroni? There are millions of Mormons who write about this and believe it. Plus, how about other tales by other religions about their private miracles? What is the difference between those tales and the Christian tale? Finally, the Jesus story closely matches stories of other gods before Jesus. Is that a coincidence; I think not. For example: Horus born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, walked on water, delivered a 'sermon on the mount', performed miracles, (turning water into wine) was executed beside two thieves, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. It turns out, that the Jesus story is a cheap knock-off of previous legends.
Your claims reflect common misconceptions about history. To clarify a few points: Eyewitnesses and Jesus’ Existence: Jesus is mentioned by non-Christian historians like Tacitus (Annals, c. 116 AD), Josephus (Antiquities, c. 93 AD), and Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD), all widely accepted by historians as independent confirmation of His existence and crucifixion. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD): Nicaea did not decide the books of the Bible. It addressed theological disputes, like the Arian controversy. The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were already widely recognized based on their early authorship, connection to the apostles, and consistent use in Christian communities. Gnostic texts like the "Gospel of Thomas" were written much later (2nd-4th centuries) and lacked historical credibility. Dating the Gospels: The Gospel of Mark is dated to AD 50-70-just 20-40 years after Jesus' death. Matthew and Luke followed by AD 70-90, and John by AD 90-100. Even secular historians like Bart Ehrman (an agnostic) affirm these dates. Excluded Gospels: The so-called "other gospels" were excluded because they were written long after the eyewitness period and often contained ideas foreign to early Christianity. The evidence for Jesus’ existence and the reliability of the Gospels stands strong under historical scrutiny. If you’re genuinely curious, I’d recommend historians like Bart Ehrman (agnostic) or Craig Keener, who delve into this in detail.
"People were still alive who could be asked about these visions" Indeed, we have letters from two of them Peter and James in which they never mention seeing Jesus in person. Craig literally proves himself wrong.
Just because they didn’t write it down doesn’t mean they didn’t see it, the scripture was written in that time period and It’s likely people then knew the stances of these individuals and their reasons for writing. Also if you are coming from an atheist position them writing this would not convince you.
@@spdomingoo Just because you were supposedly a party to the greatest event in the history of humanity but said nothing about it actually DOES mean it didn't happen. That is especially true when everyone lists you as a witness on behalf of their case.
@@spdomingoo ROFL. it's just great to see the lengths that these cultists will go to. Sure, dear, the guys who supposedly saw a dead man rise from the dead, just didn't mention it. Just like how the other gospel authors didn't bothering mentioning the dead jews wandering around like the author of matthew invented.
Also in addition James did not believe in Jesus being the Messiah until he saw him raised from the dead. It’s only then that he totally believed in Jesus and was willing to die in his belief
Total myth and nonsense with no evidence.
That's not in the Bible of course.
So much evidence, Creeds, Epistles, Gospels, Church Fathers, Josphesus
The Bible is not evidence that the Bible is true. If I write a book, and in that book I claim that everything in my book is absolutely true now and forever, would my words make it so? As for Josephus (and any other historian of the time) many scholars have concluded that any mention of the Jesus cult is interpolation. And besides, historians are no more reliable than the writers of a silly book about their imaginary "God".
Yes, don't confuse the claim with the evidence. The compiled book is the claim, and reading it does not make it the evidence.
The Bible is not evidence that the Bible is true. Josephus mentioning Jesus is probably an interpolation.
@@williamgreenfield9991 With one exception, virtually all scholars accept the mention of the death of James as being genuine.
@@williamgreenfield9991 of course, not even the story in the bible makes it true, it is the claim. Hence, WLC starts with Circular Argument.
*A Question for Christians*
Christians claim that there is only one true god. This one and true god is the god of the bible. Jesus is the son of this one true god, but Jesus is one and the same as the god of the bible. After all there are not two gods, are there? Add to this the holy spirit, and now we have the Trinity, 3 entities in one comprising the one true god.
So whether we call it god, or Jesus, we are talking about the one and only entity that is god. Thus having been said, we look at the deeds of this one true god (Jesus). This god, Jesus, drowned almost all the people of earth including millions of infants and babies, burned two cities full of children, cast plagues on entire nations murdering thousands of babies and children, ordered genocide for entire tribes, but allowed the young virgins to live and made them available for mass rape.
Are we still talking about the one true god? If yes, does this god have a split personality, one good side and one evil side? Is the good side unaware of the actions of the evil side? The question is: Why do Christians worship and pray to such a genocidal maniac? I would love to have an answer.
There is no strong objection to these claims.
serious food for thought.
This is just a repetition of the Gary Habermas nonsense, except that Dr. Craig is a much more adept speaker.
Yes, but the "food" is the imaginary concept in the analogy.
Shroud of Turin too.
Another fake claim.
The Shroud is a lie and a fake claim. It was manufactured by the church around the 13th- 14th centuries. It was tested by 3 independent laboratories.
the shroud of turin is a fraud too, just like the rest of the bible nonsense. Curiosu how the bible itself says that there were multiple cloths, and they were wrapped around the body, not folded over like a taco.
That is all based on the text, a totally Circular Argument and Begging the Question.
He is saying "New Testament critics today" like if that makes the story true.
Your point about circular reasoning misunderstands the methods used by historians, including New Testament critics, to analyze ancient texts. Scholars-both Christian and secular-do not assume the New Testament is true; instead, they apply historical criteria to determine which elements are likely historical.
For example, in 'The Resurrection of Jesus', William Lane Craig demonstrates that historians evaluate texts using principles like:
1. Multiple Attestation: Events recorded by multiple independent sources are more likely historical.
Jesus’ crucifixion is attested in the Gospels, Tacitus (Roman historian), and Josephus (Jewish historian).
2. Embarrassment: Details that would be embarrassing or counterproductive to the authors are unlikely to be fabricated.
The Gospels report that women (low-status witnesses in 1st-century Judea) discovered the empty tomb.
3. Early Testimony: The closer a text is written to the events, the less time there is for myth to develop.
Paul’s letters (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:3-8) date to within 5-10 years of Jesus' death and record early claims of His resurrection.
This is how modern historians, including skeptics like Bart Ehrman (an agnostic), approach the New Testament-not as circular reasoning but as historical analysis of ancient documents, the same way they treat other writings like those of Tacitus or Pliny the Younger. The consensus, regardless of faith, affirms certain facts: Jesus lived, was crucified, and His followers sincerely believed they saw Him alive afterward.
The question isn't whether this 'makes the story true' but whether these facts warrant an explanation-one the resurrection hypothesis best accounts for.
@@fredsalfaVery well said
@@fredsalfa Paul never met Jesus, so how is anything he says even relevant as to the question of what really happened regarding the events in question? Scholars claim that the 4 gospels were NOT written by the apostles they are named after, thus, no eyewitness reports in the Bible. I'll even grant your facts: #1 A person likely named Jesus (or whatever his name was in Aramaic) lived at the time and place in question. #2 A person named Jesus was crucified (A common method of execution at the time. Lots of people not named Jesus were likely crucified and lots of them suffered horribly too. Being crucified, in and of itself, does not automatically make this Jesus fellow special). #3 The followers of his cult were highly motivated to believe that he would come back from the dead, since he said he WOULD be resurrected, and implied in no uncertain terms that he was "God" or "the Son of God", and that he had co-equal power with this "God" fellow (supposedly, since we don't really know what he said because the anonymous and decades later writers of the 4 gospels had only hearsay evidence of what he said. And don't forget that in all his reported teachings he never says anything approaching, "You, my apostles, should write down all these things I say, compile them in a book, call that book "Holy" so everyone will be impressed, then worship that book as the one and only revealed word of God", did he?). They BELIEVED with a (let's face it) fanatical fervor (You know, like the small minority of fanatically fervent believers in every OTHER religion who ALSO feel that their religion is the one and only TRUE one, AND are willing to kill or die for this belief?) So, your statement that these followers "sincerely believed they saw him alive afterwards" is almost certainly a "fact" (as near as we can ascertain) BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAPPENED! And yes, whether or not the story is true IS THE QUESTION! I submit that your conclusion that the "resurrection hypothesis" is the best explanation is not warranted., but thanks for admitting that it's only a hypothesis. I have a better "explanation". The apostles and other followers of this cult (who are like millions of people throughout history who have died for lies) hallucinated or imagined what they desperately wanted to be true.
*Why the Resurrectionof Jesus Cannot be True?*
According to Christian dogma, God (Jesus) is all knowing. If a being is all knowing, he will already know all the events of the future in advance. God (Jesus), who has free will, already knows his own future decisions. How can a being have a free will and already know every decision he will make in the future? That is an enormous contradiction. He either has free will (and can change his mind) or already knows every future decision he will make; he cannot do both.
And on the resurrection, Jesus (all knowing) knew always that he would be resurrected. So where is the sacrifice for the redemption of all humans? He did not really give his life, since he knew exactly that he will resurrect himself. At best, he lost half of a weekend. Not a real sacrifice, is it? Making these absurd claims is how Christians play tennis without a net.
Your comment raises an interesting objection, and it’s worth looking at it carefully.
First, sacrifice and suffering are not diminished by knowledge of the outcome. For example, if a soldier knowingly throws himself on a grenade to save his friends, the fact that he expects his actions to save others does not make his death any less sacrificial or his pain any less real. The same principle applies here: Jesus’ foreknowledge of the resurrection doesn’t negate the physical, emotional, and psychological torment He experienced leading to and on the cross. Historical sources-Christian and non-Christian-agree that crucifixion was one of the most excruciating and humiliating forms of execution.
Second, regarding the historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection claims:
Virtually all serious historians, including secular ones, agree on three core facts:
1. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
2. His followers genuinely believed they had seen Him alive after His death.
3. The explosive rise of Christianity cannot be explained apart from these events.
These facts are supported by historians like Bart Ehrman (agnostic), Gerd Lüdemann (atheist), and others who reject supernatural claims but acknowledge that something significant happened to Jesus’ followers that radically transformed them.
Third, the resurrection claim is not about Jesus ‘resurrecting Himself,’ but rather about His followers interpreting it as vindication of His sacrificial death. Even skeptics like Bart Ehrman admit that the disciples believed they had encountered the risen Jesus-whether hallucination, misinterpretation, or otherwise. The debate is not about whether the claims happened but rather how to explain them.
Lastly, on omniscience and free will: foreknowledge does not eliminate the reality of choice. If a fireman enters a burning building, knowing he might save others but die in the process, his awareness doesn’t make his bravery or risk any less real.
In short, while you may reject the supernatural claims, the historical evidence and the philosophy of sacrifice suggest that the resurrection claim deserves to be taken seriously, even as a hypothesis. To dismiss it as ‘a lost weekend’ overlooks the immense suffering Jesus endured and the revolutionary impact of His followers’ belief that He had conquered death.
@@fredsalfa
Nice canned propaganda (I have seen this copied comment many times).
Simple question, and let's see what your answer is:
The bible claims many thousands of eyewitnesses to Jesus, observing miracles, resurrection, etc.. Can you name a single EYEWITNESS (outside the bible, which was compiled in 325 CE) who mentions one word about Jesus? Even a single secular writer or historian will do.
Because he is omniscient. So, outside of time and space.
@@Lionessliving
So you have no evidence! Making things up and lying only shows how ignorant you really are.
@@maylingng4107 Have you not heard him mentioning Josephus who was jew and not a Christian, who was historian and colaborator to Romans, mentioning Jesus?
Reason and faith are opposites. If you really had evidence (you don't) you wouldn't need faith. Like the brilliant Mark Twain said: "Faith is believin' what you know ain't so".
If you are going to define "faith" as "blind belief", well then of course.
Fortunately, as a Christian, I take "faith" to be synonymous to the word "trust", which isnt necessarily blind.
(Ps: I do have evidence)
"Reason and faith are opposites" wow, a thinking person in the house, you are correct.
@@ir0nic303
If you had evidence, you would list it here, instead of just lying.
Faith = belief with no evidence.
@@maylingng4107 I said I have evidence but did not provide it because the commenter above stated that Christians do not have evidence without explaining how he/she knows that. Claims without warrant deserve responses without warrant.
And again, I do not define faith as blind belief. I define faith as trust, and trust is not necessarily unreasonable.
But If you want me to play by your dictionary, then fine, I do not have "faith", as I aim to base my belief on evidence.
@@ir0nic303
You wrote: "(Ps: I do have evidence)"
So I take it you just lied, because you have no evidence, nobody does.
Faith is definitely not trust. Trust is based on experience that something is real because it was shown to be real previously. None of religion or religious faith has been shown to be real at anytime, therefore trust is not warranted.
Who needs faith when you have all this "evidence!"
Why think that evidence precludes faith? - RF Admin
@ Respectfully, it seems to me that apologetics cheapens faith. It reduces God from a subject into a mere object of philosophical debate... and miracles into "provable" phenomena in order to make Christianity more palatable for 21st century, scientifically-minded people.
Does a person's salvation really depend on how "convincing" the apologist is? Would you be willing to address this question in a future video?
@@FlaviusBrosephusYou have a bit of a point as it pertains to trying to conform Christianity with the modern claims of historical science. For example, Craig and others do this with their views on Genesis. As a result, in the ash heap is left a good portion of book of Genesis. However, having faith, i.e., that which we have good reasons to believe is true is a reasonable faith. I don't believe we are asked to exercise a blind faith. These 'reasons' are what Craig and others try to provide in the area of apologetics.
Hm, I think you're reading a lot more into what Craig said here rather than simply considering what Craig actually said here. 🤔
@ There are many brilliant Christians (Kierkegaard being my favorite) who have made compelling cases against the enterprise of apologetics. Perhaps you haven't thought deeply enough about Dr. Craig's "evidentialist" approach? I am open-minded to hear what Dr. Craid would have to say about this tho...
WLC lays out not a single line oof evidence for Jesus's resurrection or for Jesus's existence. Answer this WLC: Can you list a single eyewitness to Jesus (outside the lies in the bible, which was assembled in 325 CE) who mentions Jesus - even a single word?
Any historian or writer EYEWITNESS will do!
It appears you've been deceived about the dating of the Bible. Even atheist New Testament scholars date the writing of all of the various books of the New Testament from 20-80 years after the death of Jesus, with some information in those books (such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-5) dating to within 2-5 years after his death. Not to mention the fact that we have actual fragments of the Bible dating to before 325 AD.
Moreover, Luke claimed to have interviewed eyewitnesses for his information, and all scholars recognize Luke as a credible historian. The book of Acts (written by Luke) contains over 80 archaeologically confirmed facts.
Your comment presupposes that the other writers were not themselves eyewitnesses. What reason do you have for that position? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos
Nope! You are ignorant of history. At the council of Nicaea it was decided (by show of hands) which of the more than dozen gospels to include in the bible, and which to exclude. Ever wonder why so many were excluded? The several that were excluded because they contradicted the 4 that was included (and they contained a different or no Jesus stories).
How convenient was that? It just shows the fakery afoot.
Nobody knows who the gospel writers were. All we know that they were anonymous Greeks who never set foot in Judea. The names of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were invented by the Greek bishop, Irenaeus in 170 CE and inserted into the gospels. Also, the evidence that they never met Jesus is clear from their own writings. All gospels are written in a third person narrative.... there is no texts as "I saw.. we have seen... etc."
No historian recognizes the 4 alleged writers as historically legitimate. The bible is church propaganda. Can you provide a single piece of evidence that makes any bible story true? Take your choice (The Flood, Exodus, etc. ).
I believe the other "gospels" were excluded because they weren't considered reliable sources as they were written much later after Jesus' life and death.
The latest gospel, the book of John, is thought to have been written around 90 - 100 AD (60 - 70 years after Jesus' death). The earliest (partial) manuscript we have of the book of John is dated to 125 - 150 AD.
The Gospel of Mark is thought to have been written as early as 50 AD, only 20 years after the death of Jesus.
As for Iraneus, he is one of the first peoples to organize the gospels into what would become the New Testament. The gospels names were most likely attributed to them prior to this.
The Christian bishop, Papias, referenced Matthew and Mark by name as the authors of their respective gospels around 120 - 140 AD.
@@dbnation35
*Historicity of Jesus*
There is no evidence that the biblical Jesus ever existed. The virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrections are the foundational dogma of the Christian religions; no evidence exists for any of that. That a man (rabbi, minister, priest or a hobo of his day with similar name lived, is possible, but that would not serve Christianity.
What about the thousands of writings and claims from many religious historians? They are serving their faith and are not interested in facts of history. Is it possible that not a single eyewitness to Jesus mention a single word about Jesus? No it is not possible, if he really existed and performed those miracles.
What about the contemporaries, writers and historians in the early first century? There were more than a dozen of those around Jerusalem and the Middle East. Nobody mentioned witnessing the birth, trial and crucifixion of Jesus or the graves opening and the dead walking around the city.
If you are tempted by the 4 Gospels, then you should know that these were written by anonymous Greeks living in Greece having never met Jesus, just hearing the folk tales. The 4 did not have names, and we do not know who they were or what they saw or did not see. The Greek bishop, Irenaeus invented the four names and inserted them into the gospels in 170 C.E. Did you ever ask why the other dozen or so gospels were excluded from the bible? The answer is, they were excluded because they contradicted the four gospels that were included. Very convenient. It should also be noted, that the bible was and I still being revised. Several versions are in use today.
For those perpetuating the Jesus propaganda I would like to ask; (1) Do you believe that the prophet Muhammad split the moon in half and rode a winged horse (buraq)? Well, there are thousands of written confirmations/writings and 1.6 billion Muslims claim it so. (2) Do you believe that Joseph Smith received god’s message on golden tablets from the angel Moroni? There are millions of Mormons who write about this and believe it. Plus, how about other tales by other religions about their private miracles? What is the difference between those tales and the Christian tale?
Finally, the Jesus story closely matches stories of other gods before Jesus. Is that a coincidence; I think not. For example: Horus born of a virgin, had twelve disciples, walked on water, delivered a 'sermon on the mount', performed miracles, (turning water into wine) was executed beside two thieves, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. It turns out, that the Jesus story is a cheap knock-off of previous legends.
Your claims reflect common misconceptions about history. To clarify a few points:
Eyewitnesses and Jesus’ Existence: Jesus is mentioned by non-Christian historians like Tacitus (Annals, c. 116 AD), Josephus (Antiquities, c. 93 AD), and Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD), all widely accepted by historians as independent confirmation of His existence and crucifixion.
The Council of Nicaea (325 AD): Nicaea did not decide the books of the Bible. It addressed theological disputes, like the Arian controversy. The four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were already widely recognized based on their early authorship, connection to the apostles, and consistent use in Christian communities. Gnostic texts like the "Gospel of Thomas" were written much later (2nd-4th centuries) and lacked historical credibility.
Dating the Gospels: The Gospel of Mark is dated to AD 50-70-just 20-40 years after Jesus' death. Matthew and Luke followed by AD 70-90, and John by AD 90-100. Even secular historians like Bart Ehrman (an agnostic) affirm these dates.
Excluded Gospels: The so-called "other gospels" were excluded because they were written long after the eyewitness period and often contained ideas foreign to early Christianity.
The evidence for Jesus’ existence and the reliability of the Gospels stands strong under historical scrutiny. If you’re genuinely curious, I’d recommend historians like Bart Ehrman (agnostic) or Craig Keener, who delve into this in detail.
"People were still alive who could be asked about these visions"
Indeed, we have letters from two of them Peter and James in which they never mention seeing Jesus in person. Craig literally proves himself wrong.
Just because they didn’t write it down doesn’t mean they didn’t see it, the scripture was written in that time period and It’s likely people then knew the stances of these individuals and their reasons for writing. Also if you are coming from an atheist position them writing this would not convince you.
@@spdomingoo Just because you were supposedly a party to the greatest event in the history of humanity but said nothing about it actually DOES mean it didn't happen. That is especially true when everyone lists you as a witness on behalf of their case.
@@spdomingoo ROFL. it's just great to see the lengths that these cultists will go to. Sure, dear, the guys who supposedly saw a dead man rise from the dead, just didn't mention it. Just like how the other gospel authors didn't bothering mentioning the dead jews wandering around like the author of matthew invented.