Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
William Lane Craig: The Evidence for Jesus's Resurrection. Southampton Guildhall, October 2011
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 мар 2012
- William Lane Craig sets out historical and Biblical evidence that leads to the conclusion that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Audience Q&A follows the main presentation.
Filmed in Southampton Civic Hall, this event was part of the UK Reasonable Faith Tour during October 2011. The Tour was sponsored by Damaris Trust, UCCF and Premier Christian Radio.
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, La Mirada California.
For more resources visit www.bethinking.org
![Chuckyy - Devil Hours [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f3wZGj0VnZU/mqdefault.jpg)
57:49 It doesn't prove God's existence, but so much of my friends and myself have dealt with that same horrible issue as atheists. As an atheist from the time I was born (obviously) through my teenage years, there was never any peace because I felt there was nothing to life if we were just pieces of molecules that came by accident. An atheist can try and spin it however they want (like I did), but that will never change the fact that life has no inherent value if there is no God and we are just a product of something (organism) that came here by accident. God knew of this pain and anguish that I and my closest friends have dealt with and since that day I accepted his son, my life changed so drastically. It felt amazing and I finally felt happy thanks to Jesus!
+Alex Grachek
Praise God.
Life has no value without an imaginary God?
Speak for yourself.
Life is what you make it. It is based on the choices you make and what you learn along the way.
Since religion has done such a shit job of explaining reality and science has done a much better job at it and been much more reliable and is self-correcting, I see no reason to abandon reason and science over religion and faith.
Faith is a synonym for stupid, yet theists want to treat it as something to be proud of. That's the same as declaring I can not prove there is an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage, but I have faith because I can't prove it.
Faith is a belief for which there is no evidence. If that isn't stupid I don't know what is. In no other aspect of life do people take things on faith.
So OP lying about being an atheist since he made claims only live long Christians say about being an atheist and when called out for it the guy doing so gets called a pedo. Damn still more intelligent than WLC.
@@geezer805 Life has no OBJECTIVE value without God. You can make up numerous subjective reasons why you think that life matters but you cant escape that those reasons are not objective. Break out of that comfy bubble and face reality. Only logical continuation to atheism is nihilism. Oh, and faith? Well, did you know that scientists have FAITH? Yup, thats right. Scientists BELIEVE that the Universe is intelligible by humans...
Alex Grachek, so glad I read your comment. It’s nice to hear you admit this truth. I have such a hard time with skeptics claiming they make their purpose. Shalom
Love this guy. People might not bend a knee to truth now...while society offers so many alternatives to whatever truth you choose to believe for you....but one day you will. ...whether you choose to or not. And that's not a dictator God...that's justified judgement after centuries of tolerance.
(Psalms 14:1-3) "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
{2} The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
{3} They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
You forgot the verses about sending your daughter's to get raped by mob and then getting drunk and sleeping with them. Also murdering your first born, forcing a woman to marry her rapist, and tell people to abandon their jobs and families.
What would Jesus Do?
Probably start another cult, or nothing because he is most likely a composite character.
@@Jw-un8oh The OT is obsolete.
@jw the bible says no such things. Try reading it for yourself. God Bless
@@KevC1111 I am a Christian and he is right
@@les2997 No, it is not. it is vital to understanding the NT.
It was refreshing to watch this. I'm so glad I took the time. I thought that WLC would be dry and boring, but he was lively and warm and very Christian.
I’m gonna watch tomorrow.. glad to see your review
After his death, the disciples were huddled together in an upper room. Scared, grieving, maybe afraid the same thing might happen to them because of their association with him. If it was all fake, then why suddenly,did they take up his post and begin to preach the word boldly, first the Jewish people in Jerusalem, then to the known world at that time, being sometimes beaten or stoned, going to their deaths in the process? Something miraculous had to happen.
What would make Saul of Tarsus convert, a Pharisee of Pharisee, very zealous for the cause against the early believers, only to become an Apostle to Gentiles, once persecuting against Jesus, now preaching the gospel of Jesus? After the fact, he was also very zealous to verify the facts of the resurrection, conferring with the Apostles.
If the truth had not been reported accurately, if any of this story was false, there were too many people alive in those days who could disagree/debunk the stories. He preached to the 3,000 then the 5,000, and to the many people who were eyewitnesses to his miracles.
The creed speaks of his appearances to crowds of people after his resurrection. Not just spirit or apparition, but flesh also. Doubting Thomas had to see his scars.
Multiple writings of the prophets of the Old Testament describe even the specifics of how he would put to death, centuries before his birth.
The empty tomb. The Romans were charged with his execution and posted centurions at the tomb, then rolled a very large stone to seal the opening. The punishment if they were found derelict of their duties was death.
As WLC mentions, the Jewish people were looking for a Messiah, a king like David to deliver them from Roman rule. After his death, they had no cause to believe in him any further. Why then, would they take up the cause?
If Jesus was credited with miraculous works, healings and raising others from the dead, then why is it such a stretch to believe that the all powerful God could not raise Jesus from the dead?
Do you know how many people throughout history have been beaten, stoned, and put to death for your religion?
I love you how you invoke a sense of martyrdom for Christians. Christianity started out as Pagan religion, and everyone hated it, especially the Jews. Christianity and Catholicism are responsible for a majority of the anti-Semitism in the world.
Also Christians would stone other Christians for picking up sticks on the Sabbath.
Would you murder your child for God?
I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd rather burn in hell than be a part of pedophile, incestuous blood cult.
Scott gregery simply because it means Those atheists are lazy , they know deep inside that they would have to take spiritual responsibility for their actions and commit to Christ . They will use every excuse and reason not to go to church because it clashes with their Sunday morning lie in ..
The miracle stories like resurrection were made up by hoaxer Christian writers falsely passing themselves off as someone who existed years before them from some other place claiming to be eyewitnesses to miracles and claiming to be talking to eyewitnesses of miracles.
atam mardes, haha....WRONG
J w, haha....wow....a whopper of a tale....you must be a lot of fun at parties
Thank you for publishing this. The resurrection is huge to say the least! The grand prize for accepting Jesus is eternity in heaven. Jesus is the bridge to God and God allows free will to exist so you can come to him willingly and not through force. Greatly appreciate this video as it clearly compares various narratives that continue to try and discredit the resurrection but ultimately solidify the event. Starting with the Jewish claim that the disciple stole the body proves the tomb was empty. One of many questions that clicked for me is that if I can do great things by myself (as we all think we can) then imagine what I can do with Jesus by my side. My life has never been the same since, through the good and bad times! Thats amazing! Thanks again.
It’s just so easy to argue when your case is there is no evidence. One skeptic told me Lee Strobel wasn’t skeptical enough. Imagine that. The man was so convinced of his new found faith that he quit his well paying job and became a pastor.
"for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
Demanding that others prove God to you is a cop out.
Seek the truth for yourself. It is your own soul at risk.
That titanic reference was very clever, ha. Great lecture and Q&A, thanks for the upload.
Thanks for posting this! A really helpful resource.
To the nay sayers of Christianity: If you were given a preponderance of evidence, would you bow down and say "Jesus is Lord" or continue to harden your heart?
Satan knows God exists. Satan believes Jesus is real, and indeed, he choose to deny it, proving you are too brainwashed with this thing you call Christianity in order to understand that acceptance has nothing to do with belief. Atheists don't believe in God not because they have their hearts hardened, but because your belief is irrational.
I think the operative word here is *_'if'_*...
Yes....If! But you won't believe, so why should I waste my breath any longer. Those who want to hate God will never believe.
Sad.
brett manning
The question is rather hypothetical, not to say pointless, unless you can actually produce _'a preponderance of evidence'_, hell, I might even settle for enough evidence to at least make a plausible case.
However, given that Craig is trumpeted as a great apologist and that his arguments are downright terrible, I hope I'm excused from not holding my breath while I wait for the evidence, preponderant or otherwise.
The preponderance of evidence has always been there, you confuse your willful ignorance on the subject for a valid reply. How about starting with the hundreds of arguments from silence that in every single case when the evidence was found noising the silence, produced a beautiful harmony with the truth. And notice this makes the Bible the verified hypothesis, the status quo assigning it the presumption according to the standardsd of logic and the burden of proof to any other position which the positive evidence, a grouping separate from the argument from silence, prevents any critic from being able to fulfill.
I live close to Southampton, just down in Portsmouth, bloody funny to think you have been all the way over here.
And thats why I'm Christian.
Fantastic presentation!
It's not that he refuses to prove he exists: He's done that. He's made it so that those who truly want to seek Him and know the real Jesus will find Him.
What would cause: 11 cowards who ran away when he was arrested, denied him when he was questioned, hid themselves when he was killed, abandoned this movement and returned to their fishing jobs.....to fearless, bold obnoxious preachers who knowingly marched to their death 40 days later? And then they and their families did die????? What happened during those 40 days?
I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that every one of the 12 apostles except for Judas became fearless, bold, obnoxious preachers who became martyrs for their faith? I'm willing to accept that perhaps Peter and one or two of the others became bold preachers and martyrs for their faith. But all the others? And their families as well? Where are you getting that from?
Wow. That Titanic Reference really blew my mind!
Same goes with Jonathan Swift and Gulliver's Travels. It predates the discovery of two moons of Mars by over 100 years.
@@MessianicJewJitsu 👋
Titan story!!!
Looking in the comment section, I can't help but notice that the modern atheist does nothing more than assign disputatious labels and make half baked analogies that sound catchy-- but completely lack any sincere consideration or critique of the evidence itself.
Ad hominem
Ad lapidem
Ad novitatem
The holy trinity of atheist rhetoric.
Eh, apparently you've overlooked my numerous posts which all basically argue that if Craig wants to claim historical reliability vis-a-vis the resurrection, he can't cherry-pick the historical method or resort to special pleading.
Not to mention that _"analogies"_ are exactly one of the central tools used by historians (it's just that certain Christians seem reject out of hand any parallels or analogies with the Jesus story, because they apparently feel that it ruins the "uniqueness" of Jesus, and hence it appears they find incompatible with their theology).
Likewise, the source criticism used by historians, rather than Craig's scantly veiled inerrancy*, involves pointing out and factoring in author bias (e.g. a religious cult writing about its messiah might not be an entirely... shall we say, "unassailable" source, particularly when its writings are not corroborated by external sources).
If you're complaining about false analogies, they don't come much more blatant than Craig's constant repetition of N. T. Wright's claim about the resurrection, namely that it has a _"historical probability so high as to be virtually certain, as the death of Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70."_
What Wright is either ignorant about or choose to ignore is that we have contemporary archaeological and/or numismatical evidence (what actual historians, as opposed to New Testament scholars, refer to as _"relics"_, to be contrasted with _"narratives"_, i.e. textual evidence) as well as external confirmation of both of the latter events.
As a bit of trivia, I could also point out that Wright just happens to be an Anglican bishop of a rather conservative theological bent, and not a historian at all (the closest he came was his B.A. in Classics; both his M.A. and Ph.D. are in Theology).
So why is Craig quoting him as the clincher for the historicity of Jesus' resurrection compared with historical events on which there really do exist an overwhelming consensus among actual historians?
Could it be, that Craig couldn't find a historian willing to become a laughing stock by making such blatantly ridiculous assertions?
And please do recognise that several of these issues are not dividing people along Christian vs. non-Christian (let alone Christian vs. atheist) lines, but along conservative/fundamentalist/inerrantist Christians vs. everybody else (incl. the many Christians who don't think that their faith necessarily requires an inerrant bible without any historical errors or internal contradictions).
Oh, and what a wonderful irony, that you assert that _"the modern atheist"_ is fond of _"ad hominem"_ attacks when you're post contains exactly nothing but... ad hominem attacks - or should I say unsubstantiated allegations...
Nice move dude.
*[On inerrancy: As formulated by Craig's employer, Biola, this is a thoroughly anti-historical concept:
_"The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are without error or misstatement in their moral and spiritual teaching and record of historical facts. They are without error or defect of any kind."_ www.biola.edu/about/doctrinal-statement/
See also the Craig/Ehrman debate in which Ehrman pointed out that Craig's criterion "simple text = reliable text" falls apart when Craig simultaneously considers "complex text = reliable text" - at least when all of the text involved is from the New Testament... And the agnostic Ehrman is hardly a radical NT scholar.]
I scanned your *entire* response specifically looking for some analysis of *primary source data.*
You are familiar with the difference between secondary sources and primary sources. Correct?
When we do not actually rely on *primary source data* for our analysis, then there is always *inevitably* a fallacy of some kind involved.
It doesn't matter what subject matter we are dealing with-- we need to employ normal methods for analyzing primary source data *in everything.*
And don't get me wrong, we can rely on secondary sources to help us with analysis (obviously Craig is a secondary source analyzing primary sources)-- but we ought to always be able to repeat that analysis as it *directly* relates to the primary source. Otherwise we become secondary sources citing secondary sources citing secondary sources. What most would call an "echo chamber."
So rather than go line by line and belabor which fallacies are which, I will, respectfully, just ignore everything *except* for points where you have analyzed a primary source. And you can feel free to do the same to me.
There was *one point* where you did analyze a primary source. You said:
============
"a religious cult writing about its messiah might not be an entirely... shall we say, "unassailable" source, particularly when its writings are not corroborated by external sources)."
===========
Discarding the disputatious labeling-- and responding to the point itself.
The scientific method, in a nutshell, works like this:
1) Question
2) Research
3) Hypothesis
4) Experiment
5) Revise
6) Conclude
The logic connecting steps 3 and 4 is "If statement 'A' is true then 'B' ought to be empirically observed."
Example:
1) "If gravity exists, then we ought to empirically observe any two bodies of mass exerting an equal and opposite pulling force on each other."
2) "If Johnny was at school today, then we ought to empirically observe his name in the attendance records and his teachers & classmates having seen him."
3) "If Jesus was God, and was resurrected from the dead, then we ought to empirically observe his followers, truly affected by His message, going to any length necessary to honor Him and what he taught."
That is what scientists *mean* by "experiment." "If 'A' is true, then 'B' ought to be empirically observable."
In other words. Pointing out that Jesus' followers were obviously, literally, willing to die for sake of the gospel message *is evidence* that what they record is true.
We *ought* to empirically observe a heavily slanted focus on the object of their worship, Jesus, if (in fact) Jesus *was* resurrected.
Right?
I mean its not as though something like what they claim happened could ever actually happen. . . and then, when they write about it, they *don't* glorify Jesus as Christ. That would just be absurd.
And this is a key point that makes the gospels so convincing: *there is literally no other phenomenon like them in history.* None, whatsoever, that match all of these criteria:
1) The first followers are in an immediate position to *know*, 100% with their own eyes, whether or not the very foundation of their faith was a lie.
2) The first followers have nothing to gain (money, land, political power, etc.) by sharing and spreading what they had seen.
3) The first followers had everything to lose (life, freedom, social acceptance, family acceptance, physical security) by sharing what they had seen.
4) The majority of the first followers *actually did*, in fact, lose everything-- even whilst the opportunity to recant their claims of what was seen was provided to many of them before they met their end.
5) The founder, himself, is a historical person under an identifiable king, regime, dynasty, or otherwise governmental power in a specific time and place in world history.
If hypothesis: "Jesus was resurrected from the dead" is true.
Then we ought to *empirically observe* a significant number of facts which would *have* to follow from it as a result. *One* of these such facts is the presence of a rather *radical* and *extreme* "bias in point of view" (to use your wording) of Jesus' followers themselves.
V/r,
Steve
Steve Bennett
You invoking the scientific method is a red herring here, because the question "Was Jesus' resurrection a (real) historical event?" is a *historical* question, hence the method you (and Craig) should be applying it the *historical method* which is specifically designed to the situation wgere your point _"4) Experiment"_ is impossible to apply. This historical method also consider the issue that authors may either be mistaken or wilfully misleading, particularly if they, like in the gospels, are basically writing a manifesto of a set of fervent beliefs.
Yes i *do* know of primary vs. secondary sources and one of the problem with the New Testament is that it's highly contested whether it actually *does* consist of *primary* sources (in the sense that a historian use the term, i.e. people writing about their *own* experiences) or secondary sources of people writing about what they've been heard happened in the past.
Only on parts of Paul's writings is there anything resembling scholarly consensus that they're primary sources. As for the rest, most who aren't already wedded to a "conservative" theology tend to agree are actually second hand sources.
Paul, our only undisputed first hand source, is clear about never having met Jesus and basing his Christian message on personal revelation - not on historical evidence from the Jerusalem group around Peter. Neither does Paul write much on the actual historical Jesus (after all, why bother when Paul had a direct line to Jesus...).
As to the non-Pauline parts of the New Testament (NT) there are numerous internal inconsistencies between various parts of them, which further casts doubt on their stories, the varying chronologies of the nativity in Matthew and Luke being among the best known.
Similarly, some accounts contain fantastic stories, such as Matthew's "resurrected saints" during the crucifixion, which aren't even corroborated by the other NT authors.
Also, two of the three the canonical gospels are dependent sources (Matthew and Luke use Mark's account as a basis), and their supposed other common independent source, the elusive Q, is entirely hypothetical. Indeed, the main alternative scenario to the Q-reliant 2-source hypothesis, variously called the Farrer(-Goulder-Goodacre) hypothesis, while not a majority view among NT scholars, is still supported by a sizeable minority, and on the research agenda. (See for instance the research project at the department of Theology at Copenhagen University: _"The Gospels as Rewritten Bible"_, www.teol.ku.dk/english/dept/abe/research/).
Your claim about the disciples being willing to die as some form of corroboration is flawed for two reasons:
1) Our accounts of their deaths are solely based on later Christian traditions, i.e. we don't actually *know* that these martyrdom stories are true (either that they _were_ martyred or that they _didn't_ recant).
2) While I wouldn't necessarily find it impossible that these believers died for their beliefs, we have so many incidences of so many believers dying for such disparate beliefs (religious as well as political, national etc.), that to attach some special significance to Christian martyrs is no more than special pleading.
Hence I usually refer to this particular line of argument as the "martyr fallacy".
It also means that your point 1)-4) are completely irrelevant when it comes to determining the historical accuracy of the NT accounts.
When it comes to your point:
_"5) The founder, himself, is a historical person under an identifiable king, regime, dynasty, or otherwise governmental power in a specific time and place in world history."_
Then you again have to look at our sources for Jesus.
Apart from the NT, the problems of which I've already pointed out, we have few and poor sources for a historical Jesus (hence the numerous and varied results of the "quests for the historical Jesus").
A) The best is Josephus, but here there are several problems, particularly with the most detailed depiction of Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum, which (again apart from certain "conservative" theologians) are considered to be either a complete forgery, or at least containing numerous later Christian interpolations. Unless we go with the minority "conservative" theological view and just accept Josephus outright, Josephus, at best, confirms a historical person called Jesus, not the resurrection.
B) Tacitus wrote about _"Christus"_ being crucified, but the source has two problems. First, it is an explanatory passage about who the Christians are, and cannot be demonstrated to be anything but a repetition of Christian beliefs (I find the use of _"Christus"_, rather than_"Jesus"_ is indicative of this, Roman records would be unlikely to refer to Jesus as "the anointed one"). Secondly, and connected to the first, Tacitus wrote at a time when the canon of at least Mark, Matthew and Luke had already been in circulation among Christians for years.
Even if we were to grant Tacitus the status of independent confirmation, it's highly significant that he *didn't* write anything about Jesus' supposed miracles or the resurrection. Hence, even if Tacitus can be used as evidence for a historical Jesus, he can't be used to confirm the resurrection.
The other various sources either don't concern Jesus, but rather Christians (e.g. Pliny), or are late and not relying on anything remotely likely to be first-hand accounts.
Basically, while I don't agree with the so-called mythicists that Jesus was an entirely invented character, our sources for the historical Jesus comes entirely from people who never met him; sources which for various reasons are highly questionable (NT, Josephus), or exceedingly vague (Tacitus).
Hence any historical Jesus is an essentially unknown figure, as opposed to the biblical Jesus which, however, is unlikely to be historical.
The main reason I disagree with the mythicists is not that I find their argument or conclusion impossible or even implausible. It's rather that I don't see why anyone would bother to invent a mythical preacher, instead of just "bolting on" a messiah-story onto a real one (after all, there was no shortage of apocalyptic preachers and doom-cryers either then or now).
DebatingWombat
Over the last couple of days, I've pondered your response.
Above every other observation I've noticed is that you have no *methodology or criteria.*
Are you familiar with the term "ad hoc?" You can tell when someone's response is "ad hoc" because their response is *special* to the point you raised. . . but the same reasoning process they used to make the point will be abandoned a moment later given an identical fact set in a more neutral context for which they have no strong opinion.
So I'm asking you *exactly* what is the *objective standard* by which you judge a claim to be true or false?
State the standard, the method, in its *fully listed criteria*, and them demonstrate how you have taken that standard and applied it to the gospels.
--------------------------
For example, by what objective set of criteria do you even *date* the gospels? Do you understand the *accepted methodology* for dating when an ancient document was written?
This is not a red herring. If one's methodology is not formulaic-- and can not be *consistently* applied to *any* historical document *generally*-- then your whole approach will be disorganized and you will find yourself disagreeing with anything and everything whatsoever on an ad hoc basis.
Steve Bennett Well said!
I see a lot of comments popping up that make clear the bias of unbelief. The comment display that most negative posts haven't even listened to this presentation. Open mindedness implies being open to something you clearly don't believe.
I very much agree. Martyrs don't necessarily prove the truth of a religion, but rather serve to show that those people were genuinely convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead. The fact is that these disciples were preaching that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead, and they were willing to die for it. Now, it's about best explaining these facts. Also, you have Paul's conversion to deal with.
Actually, it was the fact that my heart was yearning for Him that led me to explore the evidence more thoroughly than I had ever done before. So I guess my heart led to a turn around in the mind which led to a final turn around in the heart, haha.
The evidence is very credible. If you would actually listen to his talk he points out many scholars and new testament crictic finds the evidence either unique in a sense its hard to deny or just plain credible to bring people to believe base on the EVIDENCE. The number one mistake that people makes is the saying "christian believes in blind faith" That is far far far from the truth. One must study the new testament very carefully to see that this not true. Apart from personal experience my faith is strengthen by the evidence. If Christ has not risen as paul write in his epistle then our hope is vain and our Faith is FUTILE. 1 Corinthian 15
+David s You demonstrate your ignorance well as the 'basic facts' are not Craig's but those universally accepted by scholars. This was first popularized by historian Dr Gary Habermas in his PhD dissertation known as the 'minimal facts' which are the minimal historical facts universally accepted by historians in a consensus necessarily including non-Christian scholars. Instead of mindlessly regurgitating the pablum you heard from unscholastic sources, try applying critical thinking and actually testing these assertions for veracity.
+David s Denial is not refutation it is concession. And the ad hominem fallacy also is not refutation and is also concession.
You are an ignorant liar as above you stated "Craigs basic facts" directly attributing them to Craig. Second you were lying as you've never even heard of Habermas' minimal facts until I educated you on them having no clue what the minimal facts are and that there is a consensus amongst historians accepting them which is why Habermas put them in his PhD thesis and because of the consensus Craig refers to it.
Oh look, ***** cannot intelligently or maturely discuss or debate the subject, cannot rebut or provide evidence and appears to be a wounded adolescent desperate to express his angst and seek any attention, even negative attention. Way to expose yourself and confirm my previous comment...brilliant. Keep it up, works for me.
+Machiavellian Science Name dropping mostly apologist's, pro and con and a few author's, not actual historians or scholars, from the Jesus Seminar and outdated form critical school whose every unbiased presupposition save one that is consistent with the Gospels being based upon eyewitness testimony doesnt cut it son. You havent read any actual scholars, historians or archaeologists and have no education or clue about historiography. Your assertions about the Aenid and Homer demonstrate this. No serious scholar backs up your assertions on this because they are so obviously wrong. You are mindlessly regurgitating the pablum you have early swallowed from unscholastic sources failing to apply critical thinking and test it for veracity.
There is a reason there are no academic peer-reviewed journals with research on the Aenid or Homer's writings yet there are numerous academic journals for research on the Old and New Testaments Like 'The Journal for the Study of the Old Testament', 'The Journal for the Study of the New Testament', 'The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus'.
The fact is the form critical paradigm has died a slow death over the last three decades and the historiographically verified evidence demonstrates the historical veracity of the Old and New Testaments. Your cute little list did not include any actual scholars with original research published in academic peer-reviewed journals save Blomberg who would tear you to shreds. Get back to me when you have read actual scholars, historians and archaeologists like Charlesworth, Theissen, Hertz, Moo, Mertz, Wright, Meier, Bauckham, Kitchen, Wood, Petrovich.
Just a sampling of a mountain of evidence refuting you from actual scholars:
Richard Bauckham, renowned historian and expert on historiography and ancient eyewitness testimony:
"The death of the form critical paradigm, which has been slowly exhausting itself for several decades, should liberate Gospels scholars to purse a whole field of research into narrative forms on the lines we have suggested."
Bauckham Richard, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006) p 351
"it is a curious fact that nearly all the contentions of the early form critics have by now been convincingly refuted..." IBID p 242
"More recently Martin Hengel has insisted, against the form-critical approach that the "personal link of the Jesus tradition with particular tradents is historically undeniable," but was completely neglected by the form-critical notion that "the tradition 'circulated' quite anonymously...in the communities, which are viewed as pure collectives"6"
6. M. Hengel, "The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of jesus Christ (tr. J. Bowden; London: SCM 2000) 143." IBID p 7.
"Even a few of these criticisms would be sufficient to undermine the whole form-critical enterprise. There is no reason to believe that the oral transmission of Jesus traditions of the early church was at all as Bultmann envisaged it. It is remarkable that this is not more widely acknowledged explicitly, though once one is aware of it, it is not difficult to see that many contemporary Gospels scholars acknowledge it implicitly by ignoring form criticism in it's classical form. But what form criticism has bequeathed as a long enduring legacy is the largely unexamined IMPRESSION--and probably even more students---still entertain: the impression of a long period of creative development of the traditions before they attained written form in the Gospels. The retention of such an impression is not defensible unless it is justified afresh, for the arguments of the form critics no longer hold water." IBID p 249 [emphasis original]
"For the form critics it was axiomatic that folk literature was anonymous and to be attributed to the community not to individuals certainly not named individuals...Virtually every element in this construction has been questioned and rejected by some or even most scholars. Many of these criticisms are rooted in the much better and fuller information that is now available about the way oral traditions operated in predominantly oral societies...The ASSUMPTION of the comparability of folklore---freely altered and created can be questioned at several points. The time span between Jesus and the gospels is much shorter than the periods of time spanned by the traditions studied by folklorists. Moreover the nature of the traditions is very different...Folklorists themselves have abandoned the "romantic" idea of the folk as collectively the creator of folk traditions in favor of recognizing the roles of authoritative individuals in interaction with the community" IBID p 245-7 [emphasis mine]
+18josiahboi Very true. I'm always amazed at the lengths people go to, to deny these assorted facts about Jesus. Further than they'd even think of going for *most* figures of antiquity, that's for sure.
I love this man for the quality of his devotion and rigor of his arguments. All that his critics can do so often is call him names (as you see even in the comments here) or say his arguments are silly - for some reason - but they can never successfully refute the premises of his arguments, which inevitably lead to their conclusions. They often dance around them, just ignore them completely, or misrepresent them. Bottom line is obvious: emotionally, they simply cannot stand the idea of God.
Yea exactly. Their minds are closed. They are biased to try to find errors or make up their own. It’s quite sad. Especially when the story of Christianity is a positive one.
I've heard of the Christ myth Theory, but the fact is that the MAJORITY of modern historians agree on the historical fact of Jesus. The disagreements come as to what he actually was like, and the surrounding facts about him.
Couldn't have put it better my self at all. Very well said; it is nice to know there are thinkers still out there.
Wow, I had no idea he had this illness! May God continue to give him strength to keep doing this much needed work.
Eh, is there an upcoming shortage of inerrantist apologists preaching to the choir of faithful who already share their theological doctrines, that I haven't heard about?
Oh, I guess I'm not the correct audience for your message - sorry.
Jesus became a son of man so I can become a son of God.
Btw, I was an atheist much of my life turned agnostic until about 8 months ago I became Christian & now I'm a Catholic, so I studied this subject among others & saw there is more than enough for these claims to be verified. I have no vested interest. When I studied, I didnt care one way or the other. I see when people have vested interest (understandably) their conclusions will be fashioned to what their comfortable.
Very well said!
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
The Ascension is a HUGELY significant event. Not “just the cessation of the Resurrection.” Oh please do not down play Jesus’ Ascension into Heaven.
I'm a Christian, but what I find really strange about William Lane Craig's argument for Joseph of Arimathæa is that he was a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. In all 4 Gospel accounts, they describe him as either a disciple or he's waiting for the Kingdom of God. In John's Gospel, it says he was a disciple secretly. I wonder where WLC got this idea.
Mark 15.43
¿Y cuándo podrán traducir estos magníficos videos al español?
¿Aún no lo han hecho?
I believe in you Jesus, and I pray that your Spirit will help others to believe as well. Amen.
That's a puzzling prayer. It was said 9 years ago. When it was said, did Jesus start helping people believe in him? Was he not helping previously? After the prayer, did Jesus decide to help even more? Did he not already have his own ideas about how much he should help? Did he abandon his own thinking on that when he heard this prayer?
@@mytwocents7481 This guy: Jesus wants to help us
Meanwhile, in heaven: let’s just sic a virus on them for fun
Thomas - death by spear thrust in Calamina, India
Thaddaeous - killed by arrows
James, son of Zebedee - killed by sword in AD 44 by order of King Herod Agrippa I of Judea
Bartholomew - beaten, flayed alive, crucified upside down, then beheaded
Were murdered without reneging on their claims of Jesus as being son of God Resurrected from the dead
Here is how many of those closest to Jesus met their end: & none of them reneged on their claims
Matthew - killed by stabbing as ordered by King Hircanus
James, son of Alphaeous - crucified
James, brother of Jesus - thrown down from a height, stoned and then beaten to death at the hands of Ananias (circa AD 66)
John - tortured by boiling oil, exiled to Patmos in AD 95
Mark - burned during Roman emperor Trajan's reign
So basically, I shouldn't question this assumption. I should just believe without question that Jesus was raised from the dead. What about all those dead saints who were raised in Matthew 27:52 - 53? Am I supposed to believe without question that they were raised from the dead too?
All of these assumptions go against logic. If the only evidence that Christians can present are words that were written down by people who none of us knew, I don't think they have a very strong case. I think I'm within my right to not believe any of this. When it comes to extraordinary claims, seeing is believing!
+Sean Grimes Alright so if we don't see something happen, if its not written down by people we know then we cant believe it. Well I didn't know anyone who wrote about Vietnam so it may have not even happened right? And I didn't see it happen so that means it didn't happen. This guy gives you evidence for it but the only option atheist have to deny the empty tomb is that he didn't exist at all which is by the way the weakest argument I have ever heard, usually they don't realize that only 3% of people at that time could read and write and the apostles did better by mouth and before they died they wrote it down so future generations could get the good news.
+Jacob Leaver Alright, so you're saying that the most logical and probable explanation is that he must have rose from the dead and ascended into heaven?
Sean Grimes well look at the evidence and thats what makes sense. This guy puts it into words.
+Jacob Leaver No, it doesn't make sense. Jesus being resurrected and dead saints rising from their graves does not make LOGICAL sense. It may however make THEOLOGICAL sense. None of the theological claims mentioned in the Bible make any logical sense. A belief in many of the theological claims in the Bible are a requirement of the Christian faith and only make sense for reasons outside of logic and reason.
You stated that William Craig made a good argument in defense of the resurrection. That's your opinion. My opinion is that people like Robert Price and Bart Ehrman make a good argument against the resurrection. If this were the year 2000, I'd actually be siding with William Craig, but after many years of not witnessing any events where people got out of their graves for myself, I now side with people like Robert Price and Bart Ehman who argue that the least probable event to occur (resurrection) should not be viewed as the most probable event to occur as William Craig states.
Sean Grimes good, im glad you do your research and respect that. But i would like to point out that if there was a god would it really be hard for him to break the laws of nature in which he created? If i dropped a apple 100 times 100 out of 100 times it would hit the ground UNLESS a hand was introduced. You see my point? And of course you wont be seeing anyone rise from the dead. Why would Jesus ressurrection be important if everyone just rose from the dead? I hope you consider this.
Its amazing when your remember this failure of an apologist is one of the best in the field.
Great to find a voice of reason amongst all the ridiculous resurrection nonsense, thank you. He sounds even more like a broken record these days.
No, I mean the majority of historians, including secular historians. Even someone like Richard Dawkins (who I know is a biologist, but has researched this) admitted in a public debate that Jesus did exist. He did this because of the vast agreement amongst historians in general, not just New Testament scholars. And Paul's Epistles were not relegious propaganda documents, but they were actual letters to actual early churches.
I don't think you're following me here:
I'm not disputing the "began" part, I'm disputing the "cause" part. That's because the examples Craig has mentioned as basis for this induction are all of the "reconfiguration of matter/energy within the universe" kind. But he then claims it also applies to the origin of matter/energy itself. This is a different situation, so his induction need not apply there.
Even if Jesus did come back from the dead, that doesn't prove he is the son of god. The whole argument here is - Jesus rose from the dead therefore god did it. A non sequitur. Maybe some other form of magic made it happen.
No,this is not non sequitur. If Jesus claim to be God and he was resurrected, the best explanation is The he is God like he sad. Hypothesis like magic and UFOabduction is ad hoc without evidence and explanation. You are fool :)
sekirnik11
The god hypothesis is also ad hoc and without evidence or explanation.
Woltato
No,there is not. Jesus claim he is God and he will resurrected. Best explanation is the Jhesus Christ is eternal God which was resurrectec,like he sad. If Jesus said this,and was resurrected, God hypothesis is the best. You are idiot.
sekirnik11 You can't possibly know this. Maybe he was lying and a demon brought him back from the dead. The only evidence for his supposed resurrection is eye witness testimony which is pretty meaningless for something that happened 2000 years ago.
"You are idiot"
Why do Christians always resort to name calling when having your beliefs questioned? I think it's because you know that they're ridiculous and you feel insecure about it.
Woltato
there is no evidence for demonic possesion of Jesus. Jesus claim to be God,and he was resurrected-therefore He is God. eye witness testimony which is pretty meaningless for something that happened 2000 years ago. This is stupidity. Eye witness testimony is always trustworthy, people in past were same inteligent like we,and they can report what happend same,like we in today. What is difference idiot?
And what do you expect non-Christians to say? "I affirm that Jesus did miracles and rose from the dead, but I'm not going to become a christian so that future historians can have external corroboration " !?
Anyone who affirms the resurrection is by definition a Christian, so it's not too surprising that non-Christians don't !
I say "merely" because it's a hell of a lot easier to reinterpret a dead messiah than a living one who's actively recanting and converts to another faith.
Jesus=Entry into Jerusalem on a Donkey before his death (Greeted with crowds waving palm branches).
Julius Caesar=Triumphant entry into Rome before his death would have been on a chariot with someone holding a golden laurel crown over above his head.(Greeted with crowds waving palm branches).
First of all I did reply to your comment, Secondly I did not shift any burden on to you as we never formally talked about these questions. How is my comment in anyway or form ignorant?"I do not believe in" The definition of "Believe" in the context of the question was - to accept something as true, genuine, or real, This is ofcourse why i used quotations on belief. "You need to convince me" No I dont as all I did was impose on you a question. Ill let you respond to the questions.
I'll venture this analogy for Craig's misapplied induction:
P1. All mammals coming into existence are born from a female of their own species
P2. Birds exist
Conclusion: Birds are born from female birds
Now the obvious problem here is that I'm applying an inductive argument based on the observation of mammals to a case of non-mammals.
Similarly, Craig applies induction based on reconfiguration of matter/energy to a completely different situation: The origin of matter/energy itself.
1.
Reasons why Acts could not have been written before 64 AD.
1. Luke had to rely of either Mark or Matthew's gospels. Neither one is mentioned anywhere until 2nd Century - and I'm not talking about surviving copies. No other document mentions the existence of Mark or Matthew until after 100 AD.
2. The earliest reference to Mark (by the Church) implies a composition date after 67 AD after Peter's death.
3. If Acts was written prior to 64 AD, Luke's gospel would have to be before that ....
Joachim's point was clearly that the change from traditional Judaism to this utterly unprecedented, and completely un-Jewish belief in a risen Christ, is indeed good historical evidence that something remarkable must have occurred which convinced them of this. As to source material, Christianity's existence today is proof that a bunch of Jews (and later converts) came to this radically un-Jewish conclusion. And the writings of Josephus confirm this remarkable change.
""it's a special case so the same rules don't apply""
The rules for historical reliability do apply. I never said it required special treatment. I say that you can't compare Alexander the Great with Jesus. From the former you'd expect artifacts like coins and such attesting to him; you wouldn't expect the same from the latter. Why is this even a controversial point? It makes perfect sense.
I already established that contemporary evidence is not required. I provided evidence to the fact of figures who there is no question of their historicity yet do not have contemporaneous sources. According to historic methodology the account of Jesus stands unless you can provide refuting historical refutation. And double standards such as your requirement for contemporary sources fails. Thanks for the compliment on my knowledge of history.
Beautiful:
1) "Whoever posted this should also mediate it" (appeal to censorship)
2) "I get sick of seeing stupid posts of people who pretend they are intelligent and will not just listen to the person and accept or reject what he says." (ad hominem)
3) "Obviously Tens of Thousands of People respect Mr. Craig but apparently his Schooling, Career and Character have no bearing in this" (appeal to authority)
"the much more likely explanation"
Again, assuming that it's more likely before proving it is, is merely begging the question. It assumes prophecy cannot occur, or it assumes supernaturalism doesn't exist.
"so why would the author belabour the point"
Why is that belaboring the point? There's prophecy, and there's fulfillment. You don't think that something like that coming true would've behooved a follower of Jesus to record? Something that central?
Also, just because the future is seen, does not mean that free will is compromised. The future can still be changed and is no way determined. God is omniscient. He understands everything so well that He knows how everything will happen. This doesn't mean that the events don't occur due to free will. I don't know exactly how He sees the future, because I am not God, but if He created the universe through the Big Bang, then I am sure He can do just about anything.
If I remember correctly the disciples were rather reluctant believers - they believed that once he was crucified that was the end of him. None of them would of died for Jesus if he hadn't resurrected. They all then proclaimed that he had resurrected and died for that belief.
Exactly. There's no absolute proof, but there are facts that point to God. If there was absolute evidence, there would be no faith and will to believe and without faith, it is impossible to please God. Skeptics need to realize that evidence is person-relative.
When you compare Mark & John you see that they are radically different in almost every way and it's not just the style or the religious message or the nature of Jesus - they also differ on many of the 'facts' and chronology of the story.
The same is true of Matthew & Luke - whenever they depart from the base text of Mark and add their own material, they diverge significantly and there is very little agreement between them.
"That's not good evidence by any historical standard"
It's so good in fact, that rarely any record from ancient history comes close to it. Alexander the Great was first mentioned in history some 400 years after he died. Tacitus talks about his events some 70 years after the happened. You're not using historical methodology. You're using personal taste.
"You're having to resort to supernatural to get early"
Not necessarily--I gave you Luke and Acts as an example without resorting to...cont.
"And while we're back at Tacitus"
Way to avoid the topic. I mentioned Tacitus writing about the historical events some 70 years after they happened. Guess they're all made up judging by your criterion.
And nothing makes it probable that he was merely "echoing anything. He was a professional historian, not a gossip columnist. What's more, he refers to them as a superstitious and dangerous cult, making it unlikely that he would also take their testimonies as unadulterated facts.
More nonsense.
regelmihai, that last part about Tacitus disparaging Christians is what historians call the criteria of embarrassment.
I didn't say that any supernatural claim has to be accepted a priori. I'm merely pointing out to you that if we simply exclude supernaturalism from the get-go, you also exclude the possibility of the existence of positive evidence in favor of Jesus. It's circular reasoning. By definition, according to you, no evidence can even exist. If there is, it must be handwaved away, as you do with the Gospels. What evidence are you asking for, then?
What are you talking about?
I mentioned relics because they're better evidence than narratives and can be used to cross check the latter. It beats narratives alone, especially if you need to rely on accurate prophecy to make the date fit.
Why am I committing a category error by using the same historical standard for Alexander the Great and Jesus, when you compared them in the first place? I simply pointed out WHY our historical evidence (narratives+relics) are better for Alexander than for Jesus
"ou never answered my earlier question "
Yes I have. You're right, with the multiple comments it is getting confusing on this thread--I think it's buried now under all of these comments. Perhaps you missed it, but I did answer that. I said that Luke refers to Acts in the prologue as his second testimony, one that follows his previous one--the Gospel. Both are dedicated to Theophilus.
Concerning the Scriptures and rising on the third day, Paul knew the Scriptures and Peter quoted David saying that God would not suffer his servant to see decay. Remember, in John 11 Lazarus died and Jesus waited longer upon hearing of his death.
When Jesus arrived where he was buried he was told that Lazarus' body stinks, it had been 4 days, the body was decomposing.
David had said the Lord would not see decay and Paul, Jesus, and others said Jesus'own resurrection would only be 3 days and 3 nights, no longer.
Introduction was great.
Because in the prologue to Acts Luke states that this work follows his previous one--the Gospel he wrote. Both dedicated to Theophilus.
There is evidence? So we don't need faith anymore? Sounds great, but why are they not showing it? :-)
Josephus, regardless what you think of him, was not only a very credible historian, but highly respected in his time. He did not attain that respect by fame, but by the validity of his accurate documentation of HIStory as we know it. I have come to conclude that no matter what evidence is presented to an atheist, they will maintain their obstinate attitude against God, against every living proof that clearly proves His existence. I am done here....
2. cont'd
3... and Mark before that. This means that Luke would have needed to collect and edit the material for his gospel, and finish writing it while he was travelling with Paul. So Paul should have been aware of things like the virgin birth - which he didn't seem to be.
So for your timeline - Mark late 50s, , Luke's gospel 60-62, Acts 62-64
the questions remain;
a) Mark seems to have been written in/near to Rome. If it was written in 58 AD, how did a handwritten manuscript get over ....
they geninely believed Jesus had risen. Now, to understand why Paul's conversion was so significant, understand that he was a Pharisee. He had status, was wealthy, and persecuted the early Chruch. On the road to Damascus (sp?), he claims to have been blinded. He gives everything up for this belief (money, food, security), gets beaten brutally by the whips of the Romans, is persecuted himself, and ends up dying.
Just to avoid confusion: "The traditional view" is of course that the gospels were written by the names tagged onto them (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John), and in it's strongest form (though that's rare now, even among Craig and his ilk) it even holds that Matthew was the earliest gospel (hence the order in the Bible). However, the almost universal acceptance of Markan priority was one of the first consequences of critical Bible scholarship (i.e. not accepting "church tradition" as a priori true).
A) The simple reason is that historians don't tend to presuppose accurate prophecy, and passages in Mark clearly seem to refer to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Why exactly must Mark predate Acts?
B) The point is not merely "addition" but "additional magic", which is relevant due to the original post concerning the proliferation of myth/legend about an event a the time it takes for this to occur as well as the presupposition of a self-correcting oral tradition.
Now let's dive a bit into the evidence. To make this concise, I'll deal with a few facts that are almost universally accepted (even by skeptical scholars), and offer a reason why I think the Ressurrection i the most plausible explanation. 1) Jesus was crucified under Pontius pilate. 2) The tomb was empty on the morning of the alleged Ressurrection. 3) The disciples were convinced that they had seen, touched, and talked to Jesus after the crucifixion. 4) Paul was certain he had talked to Jesus
Hey DebatingWombat, I've looked at some of your threads, but I can't make out what stance you are advocating, could you maybe sum up your position for me? Thanks.
And of course WLC has never bothers explaining why, if the empty tomb was such a wonderful and compelling piece of evidence, early Christians seem to have lost it pretty much immediately...
Nor how this inability to actually locate the empty tomb, as well as its location's absence from the gospels, fits with the perfect & historical self-correcting oral tradition that the gospel authors apparently relied on.
Please give me evidence where early Christians have seemed to have lost the empty tomb? I will be waiting!
I've got to bow out here. It seems you're more interested in rhetorical posturing than dealing with evidence; and that's simply exhausting. I've studied these things for years, am relatively fluent in Koine Greek, have traced out good chunks of the history of NT transmission, and in the end they stand as exemplary pieces of historical writing from period.
Well, first off, I'm sorry if you feel insulted by what I said. Unfortunately, I tend to sound that way whilst typing late at night. I'm not the perfect person many Christians appear to claim that they are (but aren't). The prophecy requires that they lose their "land" and regain it. This happens, and is the only example of a people losing their land and regaining it in history, so it is a unique prophecy. I don't see how the nation is irrelevant because land is required for a nation to exist.
Jesus=Speared in the side by Longinus a Roman soldier with a lance.
Julius Caesar=Stabbed by conspirators with one being Gaius Cassius Longinus.
Jesus=Served in Gallilee.
Julius Caesar=Served in Gallia (Gaul).
Jesus =Was Batptised in the Jordan river.
Julius Caesar=Rubicon river where Julius Caesar uttered the famous phrase "alea iacta est" "Let the die be cast" when his army crossed it.
Jesus=Crucified on the 15th of Nisan.
Julius Caesar=Stabbed to death on the Ides of March (15th).
(pyre ashes wiped on forehead by followers)
Jesus=Hung on a cross.
Julius Caesar =Wax effigy hung on a cross (Tropaion).
Jesus=Affinity for the poor.
Julius Caesar=Affinity for the people.
D
However my point was not about a single quoted phrases - it was about the writing of and the document itself.
But regarding Luke 10:7. It doesn't originate with Luke's gospel, it comes from Matthew 10:10 but whereas Matthew uses the word 'food', Luke changes it to 'wages/hire' - whether intentionally or in error. As Matthew was supposedly present when Jesus spoke these words, we have to assume that he is correct. Luke despite being a later non-eye witness does this kind of thing a lot.
While I'm living proof of it, you don't have to believe me. You can ask Him to guide you to Himself. And if you genuinely want to know Him as your Savior and Lord, and if you genuinely want to have a relationship with Jesus, He will lead you to Him.
You could also insert a number of other events in your argument:
"None of [the believers] would have died for [Heaven's Gate] if [there wasn't an alien spaceship shadowing Hale-Bopp]".
"None of the [hashshashin] would have died for [the Old Man of the Mountain] if [Nizari beliefs weren't true]".
That's why I called it the "martyr fallacy": People have been willing to die for a host of different beliefs over the millennia. Willingness to suffer/die for something is irrelevant to its validity.
You'll find that ana-stauro was the word for crucifixion. This translates to torture stake which is why JW's argue with Christians over the issue so much.
While certainly not matching our modern standards for historical writing, the NT is easily an improvement on existing methods. Without it, modern historiography might never have developed, or would have appeared significantly later.
This is where apologetics and historical analysis depart: Apologists have an a priori conclusion (here, non-contradiction) which MUST be reached, no matter how far you have to "bend" your sources (even over backwards).
A favourite is the death of Judas in Matthew and Acts. Clearly, these are 2 different accounts/deaths, with Acts tyiing it to a local place name. Apologists still try to harmonise them, despite in Matthew Judas throws the "blood money" away when in Acts he buys the field with it
@Nazam44
But if you apply the exact same logic to the Titanic that you do for the "copied myths" argument (from movies such as Zeitgeist) you'd end up concluded that it didn't happen, which is absurd.
Zeitgeist was a stupid movie and the only “half decent” mythicist is Carrier, and he’s an idiot as well
No - you've conveniently missed out the rest of my statement where I mention that Luke's comment is in a personal introduction note to his friend - not in the main body of the story/text.
"Why? He's hardly a central figure"
You're creating your own false argument to to knock it down. Nobody is suggesting that he is a central figure and should have whole chapters devoted to him. But he is the author so the odd mention of his identity and that he was a witness to Acts isn't too much to expect.
"Luke had to rely of either Mark"
Pure supposition.
"implies a composition date after 67 AD after Peter's death."
Papias's reference in no way says that. You're reading tings that aren't there. Mark wrote down what Peter told him. Nowhere is it mentioned that he therefore wrote it after Peter's death.
Id like to ask you a few questions to gauge your religious and historical understanding. Do you "believe" that the man known as Jesus existed and was a historical figure? Do you believe that the proposed miracles found in the gospel claimed by Jesus to be true? If the answer to both of the questions are No can you please explain in-depth with "good" or certifiable evidence that the opinion you've stated is true? After which I will make a response.
Well, considering how all the those believing in the literal resurrection keep harping on about the importance of the empty tomb, I'm curious as to why its location is never mentioned, and why it was seemingly immediately lost by the early Christians.
Furthermore, you wanted to play "historical reliability" and I gave you a short list of the rules. It's not my fault that you've chosen to play on a tough level, but that's what you get when you start using the "as historically reliable as X"-line.
He may not be central to the plot of Acts but he was obviously something very special in Paul's eyes. According to your version of events shortly after Luke had gathered together the stories and wrote his gospel, Paul had not just read it, he'd decided that it was God breathed holy scripture on a par with Isaiah, Genesis etc. Even though he knew it was wholly comprised of other peoples stories. Paul didn't even make these kind of claims about his own writings.
He bases his entire argument on the claim that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". But this inductive argument is based on observations about reconfigurations of matter/energy. The circumstances he applies it to is not the reconfiguration but the origins of matter/energy.
Hence, he needs to demonstrate that his causality claim is valid in this totally different set of circumstances.
Even if correct, several of his debating opponent has pointed out that the cause need not be a being
'drcraigsvideos' got taken down: William Lane Craig's debates etc. are being re posted at 'reasonablefaithorg' channel on youtube
They weren't weird, they still consider themselves as being normative Christians. They believed Joseph Smith was a prophet. That's not the disciples' situation of coming to grips with an event that invalidates their belief, only to turn around and promote it despite the death that awaited them.
"philosophical papers in general you find that even richard dawkins has more citation"
Yeah, because philosophy has a different citation pattern than science.
To sum up: Jesus probably existed, but our only detailed knowledge about him comes from highly dubious sources, hence it's pretty hard to say anything about him for certain.
This of course has the positive aspect (for believers) that it allows for the accommodation of a wide scope beliefs in and about Jesus, as both the current and historical diversity of Christianities demonstrates.
You certainly do blather along don't you....He existed...only fringe loonies deny the existence of Christ...even hostile folks like Ehrman fervently believe and know Christ existed.....this isn't up for debate in the real world....
If you want to argue for the historicity of an event, you can't suddenly insert a caveat that your case needs special treatment while also claiming it's as historically reliable as various other cases which have been subjected to standard historical analysis.
If you want to claim Jesus and his "magic" is as historically well attested as Alexander, you can't also say, "it's a special case so the same rules don't apply".
1:30:00 a friend who's heart is hard
"Pure supposition"
Any discussions about the date, authorship and content of the original gospel documents are necessarily going to be supposition, as we don't have the original manuscripts. This applies to your arguments as well as mine.
"Papias's reference in no way says that. - Correct
"You're reading tings that aren't there" - No, that would be you. You assume that I'm referring to Papius. In fact I'm referring Irenaeus who says exactly this in 'Against Heresies'
The question is not if Thucydides wrote the book, but if what he wrote seems to match other accounts as well as archaeological evidence.
Compare with the Gospels:
Written by unknown authors in the 70s (Mark) 80s-90s (Luke & Matthew) & 90s-110s (John).
It's pretty much a certainty that they were written by 2nd and 3rd generation Christians and even when they rely on each other (Luke & Matthew on Mark) they still don't agree on for instance what happened at the empty tomb.
If you actually knew even the first thing about evolution, you would know that life didn't emerge "suddenly" in the Cambrian explosion as we have fossilised stromatolites which precede that by almost 3 billion years.
If you find ordinary textbooks too boring I would recommend Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything", or if you don't like reading or want a really condensed version, listen to BBC Radio 4's "In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg" October 13 2012 on "The Cell".
By the way: Ezekiel 4:5-6. 390 years + 40 years = 430 years. In 536 B.C. Cyrus allowed the Jews to leave Babylon and return to their homeland. 430 year - 70 years = 360 years. Leviticus 26:18, 26:21, 26:24 and 26:28: 360 years x 7 = 2,520 years. The 2,520 years are actually Jewish lunar years: 2,520 years x 360-day lunar calendar = 907,200 days. 907,200 days divided by 365 days = 2,485.479 years. Exactly 2,485.479 years from 536 B.C. is the prophetic date of May 15, 1948.