Alex O'Connor ranks up there as one of my favorite interviewers. He asks excellent questions; he gives ample time to respond; he listens carefully to the responses an asks insightful follow-up questions. And then his willingness to acknowledge and appreciate a good argument even when he disagrees--that's just profoundly rare. Thanks again, Dr. Craig, for an encouraging and rigorous defense of the faith. And thanks Alex for being a facilitator and exemplar of good dialogue.
@@derekstallwood3673 And you likely care more about self-affirmation than you do your lord, and that's what enabled you to colonize the world, with your lord being silent and worse when it mattered
@derekstallwood3673 And you likely care more about self-affirmation than you do your lord, and that's what enabled you to colonize the world, with your lord being silent and worse when it mattered.
As a believer in Jesus, (as God and my savior) I appreciate Mr. O'Conner's ability to make me personally challenge my beliefs and do so in a gracious manor.
This was a very absorbing debate and discussion. Furthermore, it was conducted in an air of civility and respect, which made it all the more pleasurable for the viewer. Many thanks for uploading. It was liked and subscribed.
I 've listened to these two men on different occasions and are truly civil in their approach,even is opposing views. This conversation started with Dr. Craig giving condolences to the passing of the Queen,, without knowing of Alex's critique on the Monarchy he had done. In humility, Alex admitted his position and both men carried on. Wonderful to see and hear!!!
@@davidstaffell as an agnostic I read the New testament. It didn't read like complete load of nonsense to me. It made sense as it was describing historical events. I really wasn't a fan of history but that's my fault.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus As an Agnostic, I too read the New Testament, along with the critical works that were written on it by other scholars and historians. It isn't a complete load of nonsense, but to call it as describing historical events is a bit of a stretch.
As a Christian, I always appreciate listening to Mr. O'Connor. He is open, fair, honest, firm, insightful, and respectful. I know a lot of Christians that could learn Christian conduct from him. Thank you, Alex.
But relgious conduct is already exists which is narcisstic 😂. If you want other conduct such as O'Connor's then you have to become an atheist or agnostic once again. Just the way you were born 😅
i am a christian and i really love Alex's questions and interviews. Well spoken and quite smart fella. I pray this guy finds his way to Jesus. This discussions help whether you believe in God or not. I used to be a skeptic and a drug addict for years with no real goal or purpose. Now my purpose is just to save my soul and anyone else i can along the way. I used to be full of nihilism and lust and anger and just praying alone changed that. Im still a struggling christian... but i believe its real and fear that it is enough to live the best life i can in Gods word.
That’s an awesome story and I’m glad you found your way but you can tell that story without god and it would be the same exact story except you’d realize the person that helped you the most was yourself. Human beings are capable of great things. Also why would god let you get to that dark place to begin with? Seems odd he’d want you to suffer.
@@coolguy1127 when we believe in something greater than ourselves it changes you and not only you but your world view. And thanks for the kind words. Try praying. I used to think it was hocus pocus... But things really did change after. It sounds crazy i know. But i prayed for a new job and healing and i got those things almost instantly. Try it for a month and really look back at what you prayed about. You will see a difference. Much love brother.
@@kylec1411 since when don’t humans do great things? Art, Science, poetry, music are all areas humans have done great things in. I strongly disagree with suffering makes ppl better. Many abusive ppl were abused when they were younger. Did all the innocent ppl who suffered and died during the holocaust become better ppl for it? Why would an all loving all powerful being want his greatest creation to suffer. And if you’re a Christian the idea of animals suffering contradicts what the Bible says. The idea of humans, souls, sin and suffering are all connected but if animals don’t have souls they shouldn’t suffer.
@@todds.6028how do you know? You don't. You know nothing (quite literally) of God. Although you oncé did but chose not to). We, the Christians, do. Most of us have been as ignorant as you before the penny dropped... You know nothing about this experience and yet still you pontificate and claim 'knowledge' and superiority (falsely) in your complete denial of your predicament. One day you will see.
@matthewstokes1608 That's the difference. I'm humble enough to admit that I don't know. You condescending arrogant Christians are just SO certain that your way is the right and true way, and anybody who believes anything different from you is wrong. In fact, you're SOOOOO astoundingly arrogant that you would presume to know what I, a complete stranger on the internet, know or don't know and choose or don't choose. Arrogant arrogant arrogant. So fucking arrogant.
I'm Christian and as many have stated, love the heck outta Alex. Very patient, smart, respectful, transparent, and open to God which is so cool. I have learned much from his conversations with others. I feel God uses him.
As an atheist I appreciate people like Alex. He helps me to practice patience and realize I was once a christian myself, and it took time for me to deconstruct and learn things that left me with no choice but to walk away from religious doctrine and ideology
If he did, where is he? Why can’t we see him? He makes sure people know he resurrected with a physical body to then have a spiritual body. “Bruh , I saw him for real.” “Ok, show me!” “Well now he’s in a spiritual world we can’t see.” “Ok, thanks for nothing.”
Asking where he is presupposes that he is currently within the spatial dimension. However, if he has transcended the spatial dimension, then the question makes as much sense as asking what the number 3 tastes like. Likewise, vision of objects requires the emission of light. If he has transcended the physical universe, then, again, the question of why we can't see him makes no sense. So, why think that Jesus has not transcended the physical universe? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg I think airforex raised a legitimate question. So 2000 years ago Jesus rose and no one has seen him since. An honest court of law even if it was pro Christian could not rule in favor of a risen Jesus. The empty tomb testimonies have no consistency. And it was all written after non witness Paul decided the risen Christ was the cornerstone stone of the new religion. So there is just not enough fact for me to believe. The extra dimensional Jesus is a stretch for sure.
@@Austinite333plenty of people have seen him through the ages. I wouldn't be a Christian if God hadn't appeared to me, and subsequently, appeared a few other times after that, and I'm not alone on this. But I can't prove an experience, even if I can accurately recall it. But his appearances are MY proof, you'll have to get your own proof and starting with doubt isn't going to get you there. Guaranteed.
@ I have seen a few unexplainable things in my 70 years here so I will not ever criticize such an experience. Having said that are we sure what we see is what we think it is? In a sense this would be an inter dimensional experience and can we trust the source? Despite my statements I am not opposed someone’s personal beliefs but I have a problem with organized religion. I won’t go deeper. Thanks for the reply.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Jesus is supposed to be BODILY resurrected so where is his body gone? In space? The whole myth is absurd but of course in fiction EVERYTHING is possible!
Alex is a great interviewer. I wonder if any of his views have shifted or developed further either toward or away from theism in the two years since this interview.
I’m a believer in the living Lord am I tell you what , Alex is a very intellectual person, I pray he finds the lord in he’s journey of truth etc. God is very real people Happy thanksgiving to all.
The original version of the oldest gospel of Mark did not originally include any appearances of Jesus after the women visited the tomb on Easter morning. Mark originally ended at verse 16:8, with no appearances of the risen Jesus - merely a statement that the young man told the women that Jesus' body was gone and they fled in terror, telling no one. The later Gospels made up the resurrection fiction and that was then also added to Mark from the Luke version 1,500 years later during the King James project to harmonize the Gospels.
It’s interesting listening to O’Connor converse with someone like Dawkins, because it’s clear how much stronger of a grasp on the fundamental beliefs Christians hold that Alex has compared to Dawkins. He really tries to steel man the Christian argument as much as possible so it fosters good conversation because he appears as if he’s at least having the discussion in good faith. Something you don’t get from many popular atheists.
If only William Lane Craig argued with equally good faith.... Which he doesn't. The number of times it has been pointed out to him that Pascal's Wager is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED because it isn't a dichotomy to choose between the christian god or no god, and in fact you would have to take the SAME wager equally against ALL god claims.... But of course, he IGNORES this flaw and continues to base his entire foundation on the fallacy instead SO FUCKING DISHONEST
@enigmaticaljedi6808 he often argues the case for the existence of god, generally. Not even the Christian God, and this is where I see him use Pascal’s wager most. Even then, there are differences in the afterlife claims of different religions, and Pascal’s wager may be more appropriate to some than others. Either way, using an argument you believe is flawed isn’t the same as straw manning your opponents argument and simply calling them dumb or morally bankrupt. Alex doesn’t do that, Dawkins does.
Alex probably does have more specific theological knoweldge than does Dawkins, because of his field of study, but the way alex talks to theists is not the result of him finding their positions worthwhile, but rather being civil for the sake of geting to keep interviewing them and getting subs and views off of it, instead of burning bridges. Dawkins doesn't seem to cafre as much about that, since hes in the tail end of his career/life, and as such, doesn't mince words,. He doesn't get chrisitan beliefs wrong, he just doesn't ptu time into twisting them into somethingsomewhat palatable, when they aren't.
@@enigmaticaljedi6808 okay, for Pascal's wager, we've got to start somewhere, so should we begin with the mythological gods? How about we start with Zeus?
@@SpaceCadet4JesusZeus doesn't work because he himself is a creation and therefore doesn't deserve any worship. The wager only works with a God that is the creator. To my knowledge only the God of the Bible fits.
@tcuisix Now, before praying the prayer of salvation, you must recognize that you are a sinner and that your sins have separated you from your maker. But, it isn't just that you have committed sins against a holy and righteous God, but that you were born into a body that craves sin. A nature which you have inherited from your first parents, who rebelled against God and wanted to go their own way. In doing so, a separation between God and man was established. But God who is rich in mercy entered into flesh like a hand filling a glove, lived a morally perfect life in thought word and deed, then went to be hanged on a rugged roman cross in your place as your representative, as your substitute, as your savior. God has given His stamp of approval (your receipt) by raising Jesus from the dead. Jesus then showed himself to around 500 people who later died proclaiming this gospel message. Now, if you believe this, then the next step is to confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, Roman's 10:9 and 10:10 in your Bible. Let me give you a short prayer. You may pray: Dear God, forgive my sins. I repent for going my own way. I believe you have provided a bridge back to yourself, the Lord Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus, I thank you for dying on account of all my sins, and I ask of you to come into my heart. Please be my Lord and personal Savior. Thank you for saving me today. Then say whatever else you want to say. I hope this helps. God bless you, brother. There is no need for elaborate articulation when talking to God. Speak to Him from your heart.
I would've liked more discussion of actual facts, eg proof the disciples even existed, proof the Roman's observed these people, proof from outside sources about Jesus, the disciples, the tomb, the resurrection, the critical analysis of the gospel and also of Paul.
I think he is a closet Christian posing as a skeptic in order to draw other skeptics into thoughtful consideration of Christianity. Im half-joking, but also half-not.
This atheist is most impressed by this dialog. I am most impressed by the cordiality and respect shown for the opponents. I don't recall seeing one ad hominem attack. I was also impressed by WLC's comments on the separation of Church and state. I can't wait to share them with my Christian Nationalist acquaintances.
What if it was a 50/50 split between Christianity and Islam? Remember, Islam has Hell and Heaven too. Does the severity of a threat/carrot on a stick impact how true a claim is?
@seanpierce9386 2 religions can never reach a 50/50 because they contradict way too much. For everything to come down to 1 fact where both religions struggle to answer you need to have at least thought everything else can be true. Now I don't believe any 2 religions can have such a situation. But if it does happen then you will have to gamble. Now, when it comes to Islam and Christianity before I even consider heaven of Islam, the Qur'an says things that are just false, and denies the crucifixion of all things. The heaven of Islam is basically a place for six with many women designed for that and drunkeness I mean that's a bit different. No the severity of the opposite doesn't mean that the option you pick is true. However, we live as if lots of things are true especially in our relationships even if its not always true. In your relationship with anyone close, when they do something really hurtful, you assume that they were "well-meaning or didn't mean to hurt you" but this is sometimes not true. But even knowing that those we love are capable of hurting us like that, we still always assume the best. Therefore, adding a religion is just one more thing but with a great possibility. Provided that you do come to a 50/50 you need to read what they teach more and more what they teach, eventually 1 religion will drop. Christianity is Christ himself, study him. Islam is the whole Qur'an, study it greatly. Hope this helps 🙏
@@Masowe. Let’s say that there are two gods, Alice and Bob, and I asked them to tell me which one is real by flipping a coin. If it’s heads, Alice exists, but if it’s tails, Bob exists. I do not reveal the result to you. If you accept my claims, then there’s a precise 50/50 split between the positions, despite being mutually exclusive. As your primary objection to Islam, you use an argument from incredulity. See, if you were a Muslim and understood things in context, you would believe. And unless you are an inerrantist, the Bible itself contains false claims that conflict with scientific consensus. I don’t see the asymmetry here. But that’s not the point. My question is a hypothetical intended to point out a flaw in your earlier reasoning. And from above, you can’t claim that it’s an impossible predicament. You should study what Muslims actually believe, not just what the Qur’an says. From my understanding, there are many teachings passed down orally as part of the tradition. Also, you should know that I’m an ex-Christian who studied the Bible with the explicit purpose of reassuring my belief. As you can tell, that didn’t work out.
@seanpierce9386 1) what muslims believe is irrelevant because Islam can be true without Muslims believing it. And what do you mean by Muslims? They believe lots of different things that are more often than not mutually exclusive, the same is for all religions. When you take the shahada (Islamic way of converting) you agree that Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his messenger but definition you agree Muhammad's teachings came from God. This has nothing to do with what Muslims believe but what You believe. It's the equivalent of Jesus is my Lord and Saviour who died for me. Why would you pledge your life to something that someone believes? 2) Christianity is not the bible, as a matter of fact, you can be a Christian and reject some books in the Bible. This is why I said the Qur'an is Islam, Christ Jesus is Christianity. The same is not true for Islam, you can't reject the Qur'an and be a muslim but you can reject the bible or some things in the Bible and be a Christian. I believe in the Bible because i believe in Christ not the other way round and I have met new testament Christians. I have a high view of the bible and reading it daily gets me better and better not just intellectual but also practical in the 1timothy way of thoroughly equips me for ALL good works. For me, reading the bible does make me believe it more and more but I also have more questions than ever before. I have the classic experience by Professor Jonn Lennox as he put it, "Christianity for me was mind expanding ". Your coin flip didn't quite get me the point that you were making, I guess because coin flipping isn't my thing, I often go back to look for more ways to reach a specific conclusion.
@@Masowe.Jesus believed the old testament did he not? I suppose he didn't quote every bit of of it, but I'd say it could be safe to say that. So it may not be a good idea to 'reject' books in the bible and be a christian. Perhaps a better way to put it is 'having doubts' or 'don't understand it'. All of that is just fine by the way. Trust in someone, namely Jesus, doesn't require us to disassemble all of ancient biblical/cosmic history in order to be with him.
The radical nature of the resurrection is radical by virtue of principle, not radical public amazement. The standard of Christianity is not that you be amazed, but rather, that you understand the implication.
I don’t fear death, in fact I look forward to it, I do however, not crave pain or suffering, but having been lonely and losing my wife 10 years ago, I have little to look forward to except of course the wonderful presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, heaven and everything that awaits me including what would be my ex-wife. There was a time perhaps when I did fear death but since I have become a Christian have a peace. I’ve had a heart attack and probably secretly expecting to have another one that would be ideal, especially if I was asleep but hey, we are in God hands.
My Almighty God extend His protecting and healing hand over you, , give you comfort on the loss of your beloved wife, and bring full, complete and lasting health to you. Amen 🙏🙏🛐🛐✝✝❤❤
Dr. Craig is no wide-eyed newbie. In 1973, entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler. In 1975, Craig began doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham in England, writing on the cosmological argument under the direction of John Hick. He was awarded a doctorate in 1977. Source: Wikipedia.
@@patrickwoods2213 I do not have a degree in philosophy but I know a lot about it. Attending university courses for credit is not necessary when books are readily available for self-study in many fields.
@@freddiefreihofer7716 I get what you’re saying, but being a historian requires a lot of more than just reading- many historians are trained in ancient languages, have gone on archaeological digs, and often times specialize in a very specific area of the field - and are constantly in contact with other historians on being accountable. Most historians that I have seen interviewed who are religious, are hesitant to take the Bible as complete history or if they believe that - they will at least point out that it’s their personal belief and not fact. Craig doesn’t do this. He is so quick to jump on “the Bible is history” bandwagon. Which is why I don’t take him seriously.
@@patrickwoods2213 I think its foolish that work and study in philosophy, historiology, and theology are irrelevant. His arguments are very consistent which is partially why his following is so high.
Just a thought on this subject. I have no animosity toward Christians per se. But the idea that the resurrection is the only explanation for what happened afterward doesn't make sense to me for a handful of reasons. The reanimation of a body that has been decaying for three days is impossible. The Roman process of crucifixion did not allow for a body to be taken down from the cross. That was part of the humiliation, to leave the body to be picked apart by vultures, etc. The disciples going on to the spread the Gospel and going to their deaths rather than recant their testimonies that Jesus had risen from the tomb might be explained this way: they lived all their lives under the hopelessness of the iron glove rule of Rome. Jesus, as the Messiah, represented their one and only hope. When he was tortured to death they were traumatized. They were incapable of accepting the truth. Like cult members in the modern age, the more evidence they were given of their beliefs being false, the more they dug their heels in to defend their faith. The disciples of Jesus, unlike the followers of Mohammed, knew him. They had sat at his feet, looked into his eyes and heard his voice when he spoke his prophecies. They loved him desperately.
Great conversation. Most atheist make it more difficult than how simple God made it. The evidence is clear but those that don’t want to accept it will continue to FIND a reason not to believe but will accept all other history as history with less historical evidence.
Not true at ALL. Completely false and complete nonsense. Any historian who’s honest accepts evidence on a case by case basis. The difference between the gospels, and regular history is that history books don’t make supernatural claims or divine interventions from gods. As an atheist, I look at all history the same - we should seek evidence through historical corroboration, archeology, and studying writings. While the Bible certainly has some of these things - the majority of the Bible is not backed by historical methods. There is no way one can prove supernatural claims. This is completely consistent when critiquing the Bible.
You just literally proved my point. There’s more concrete evidence for the Bible and the gospels than all the rest of history combined. God made it very simple for us but YOU are the one making it harder by finding any reason to reject God ignoring the historical evidence.
@@Backuptothehood55 You’re only making blanket assertions. Where is all of this awesome evidence for the Bible? You are up against many historians disagreeing with you.
I don't think God's love for the world equals Him "desperately" wanting anything from us at all. He magnificently accomplished something infinitely priceless on our behalf by an inexpressibly precious sacrifice. If we don't want to enjoy that benefit, His joy is not decreased even one iota. No desperation there. Desperation is your condition, not His.
Yes, also why don’t people take into account the results? The likelihood that some lie from 2000 years ago would be so pervasive in the world today is ridiculous. Even a true fact from antiquity would basically require God in order to accomplish what it has.
@@Izamen What has it accomplished? People believe stuff that is not true. Nothing new there. The bus your waiting to catch is over 2000 years late....
I’d say I believed more than I did not my entire life. But I’ve been leaning back into Christianity more. This podcast I’ll share with you I think has sealed the deal for me. Hope you find peace, I randomly stumbled on your comment and felt compelled to share
@@ReasonableFaithOrg The lack of credible evidence of miracles and the supernatural is a pretty strong case against Christianity. When was the last time you heard of a really convincing supernatural miracle claim?
This was a great conversation. And if I were a betting man, I would bet that Alex eventually turns to Christ and accepts him as his Lord and Savior. I think this because Alex is both highly intelligent, but unlike many of his fellow atheist intellectuals, he actually seems like he is having conversations in good faith and simply trying to find what the best evidence is, whereas pretty much every other atheist intellectual I’ve ever heard speak is more interested in simply winning the argument. It’s the combination of those two things, intelligence and good faith inquiry, that I think ultimately will lead Alex to the correct conclusion. And I think that after that, Alex will go on to be one of the world’s greatest Christian apologists, taking over the reigns from gentlemen like Dr. Craig, who are facing retirement. Thank you for this conversation, Alex!
Glad Doctor Craig shot down Sagan's 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' principle. Not only is it unsubstantiated it's utterly untrue. If you're assessing a claim with abductive reasoning (and since the Resurrection is a purported historical event abduction is really the only show in town) how extraordinary the evidence is or isn't is irrelevant. The only thing that maters is whether the Resurrection is a plausible explanation for the evidence and, if we want to be thorough, whether the Resurrection is the MOST plausible explanation for the evidence. It SORT OF applies to inductive reasoning. If you get a crazy result then you should repeat your experiment or observation and ideally get OTHER people to try to replicate the result or observation. If they can't, then something was probably wonky with your situation. But that's just how the Sir Bacon's methodology works normally. Extraordinary really doesn't factor into things.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nothing wrong with it. One should expect extraordinary evidence for the resurrection. And that's what God delights to give. And most "christians" don't even have that evidence, but have a phony faith no better than that of other dead religions. They think faith is blind. Blind faith is FOOL'S faith. If you had that evidence you would never call it ordinary. Sagan wasn't wrong to ask for it. His problem was he never did ask for it, because he would never believe or stoop so low as to ask; so he thought it was a clever reply to something he fully never intended on accepting. His blindness was total.
@@mattyd2818 Because it harmonizes the body of evidence that's being examined. If you don't think it's a plausible explanation that's probably because you're confusing probability with plausibility. Given that people don't reliably rise from the dead it appears to be a highly improbable event.
@bennewby9600 I did not get an actual answer. Focus please on the actual claim. WHY or HOW can anyone actually think a resurrection is possible or plausable? What allows one to conclude that literally any other natural explanation is LESS plausable? I am not asking what you think is evidence because there is literally zero information that is actually indicative of a resurrection.
@@mattyd2818 You did. I provided a brief description of what plausibility means within the context of abductive reasoning. And just an fyi, saying that there's 'no evidence' for the resurrection within the context of abductive reasoning in nonsense. Evidence is merely the body of facts that we're trying to account for. Mister Craig was nice enough to lay out the relevant facts in the discussion. 1) Jesus was crucified under the authority of Rome 2) Jesus was buried under the authority of the Sanhedrin 3) His tomb was found empty by His female followers 4) His followers were convinced they saw Him alive afterwards 5) His followers were willing to suffer and die to affirm that He rose from the dead The resurrection is a plausible (one that harmonizes) explanation of these facts, the supernatural nature of that explanation (improbability) is irrelevant to whether it's plausible or not. Which natural explanation would you suggest as more plausible (or even plausible at all)? The conspiracy? The wrong tomb? The mass hallucination? The swooning Jesus? Maybe something else? I hope you aren't a Jesus myther because in that case I'm sorely wasting my time.
If he ends up believing in a god it will very likely be a deist version of god - not the biblical god. Alex seems too rational to believe in any religion.
Many atheists come across as angry and vindictive. Alex is remarkably calm in disposition, which alludes to good faith inquiry. May the Holy Spirit enlighten his heart with the gospel truth
Well understandable see, they're both religious of course they're all angry defending their faith. But the Christian should be ashamed of themselves because that's not how they should behave according to their faith.
@@zylo1967In other words, hopefully he accepts Jesus now whilst he's alive, vs witnessing Jesus reject him in the afterlife because Alex denied belief in him in this life. Hope that makes sense 😊
Craig is brilliant as usual. None of the alternative explanation of the historical facts are even plausibly used by atheists today such as the halucination theory which doesn't explain the empty tomb which requires the conspiracy theory, which contradicts the halucination theory, etc... Atheists are just left with agnosticism without being able to explain the well established historical facts.
What makes you think the empty tomb is a historical fact? Even Habermas who very much wants it to be does not go that far. I'm curious how you come to a different view.
@@Kvothe3 "What makes you think the empty tomb is a historical fact? Even Habermas who very much wants it to be does not go that far" Not sure where you got the idea Habermas doesn't think the empty tomb is a historical fact. See link below. The vast majority of new testament scholars / historians (including non Christian) agree to the historical reliability of the empty tomb. This has really been solidified over the last few years with recent developments. To deny the empty tomb, you would have to float some alternative such as the disciples stole the body which is what the jewish leadership and Romans claimed at the time. That means the jewish leadership and romans admit that the tomb was empty! That's enemy attestation which lends credibility to the historical account of the empty tomb. Even Jesus enemies admit this. If the tomb was not empty, you can be sure they would have produced the body and squashed the claim of resurrection which would have destroyed Christianity before it even got started. The historical source shows the empty tomb was discovered by a group of women which is highly unlikely to be made up at that time since women were not considered reliable eye witnesses. We also know that the disciples all inspected the tomb. And much more... If you don't want to take Christian scholars / historians word for it (because of your bias), then read what non Christian scholars have to say on the matter. But you have to seek out actual credible scholars / historians that make a living in the field. www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/the-empty-tomb-of-jesus/
@@elkhuntr2816Don't get me wrong, Habermas absolutely believes in the empty tomb. But he does not include it in his list of bedrock historical facts. Notice as well that he never gives any support for his claims about majority this and that. I know he is planning to publish it all in I believe volume 3 of his work, but to this pout all we have is hearsay. Would it surprise you to know that the majority of contemporary scholars who study the Qur'an believe the claims it presents about Allah? Why not? @elkhuntr2816
@@elkhuntr2816 How would you feel about a returning Jesus who comes back every 10 years, and performs miracles and speaks to us, that would be pretty cool wouldnt it. How could any other belief system compete with that. He stays for a few days, then tells us his next return date and location, and it comes to pass everytime, whats not to like about that?
@@bonnie43uk "How would you feel about a returning Jesus who comes back every 10 years, and performs miracles and speaks to us, that would be pretty cool wouldnt it. How could any other belief system compete with that. He stays for a few days, then tells us his next return date and location, and it comes to pass everytime, whats not to like about that?" Whats not to like about it is that its not true. Its a man made fantasy. This is why we have so many false religions, man making up his own. You have to follow the evidence and determine what is actually true. But that's only the beginning, belief alone is not enough. Once you know the God of the bible is true and Jesus is who he claimed to be, then you have a decision to make. Accept him or reject him and go your own way. The consequences of that decision are enormous.
The life of an atheist might potentially be more difficult and lonely, but I am firmly convinced that it is also braver and more honest. A religious person might argue that it would be tragic to miss out on an afterlife, but we would respond that it would be tragic to realize, at the end of this life that only comes once, that one had wasted the whole thing on a folly. The truth is a worthy trade for facing up to reality.
@@Mr-Thou Well, there's always the person's own experience of it. A life spent helping others, full of friendships and meaningful work, is bound to be more enjoyable than one spent otherwise. A full life also helps ease the suffering of others, at lease potentially. Just because you acknowledge that your existence is finite doesn't mean you don't care about anyone else who comes afterwards.
The Pharisee Paul was a relentless persecutor of the Jesus-Jews because they proclaimed the crucified Jesus to be the resurrected Jewish Messiah. Then Paul had a miraculous encounter with the Christ deity on the road to Damascus. Sometimes it takes a miraculous encounter to become a believer.
Do the “benefits” of Mormonism also exclude them from the need for a higher standard of proof for angelic visits, gold plates, Urim and Thumum, and Peter James and John giving Joseph Smith priesthood keys?
If one does not believe Love is both true and manifest and the origin of all, and therefore able make demands upon one's conscience, how then could one possibly believe that that very same Love can and did walk out of the grave by His own power? "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?" (John 5) Deus caritas est.
@@christopheespic Sure, at 12:35 he asks "how many popsicles do you think Jesus would have eaten if he were alive" really, that question has no place in a formal interview
My cousin once told me who is an agnostic- with all the chaos, suffering of this world why not God appears in our time 20th century where most are develop and literate. In the bible its the same plead that rich man ask Abraham to bring back lazarus to death so his unbelieving brothers might believe. Alex here is something you must think about God as being God His character, and His ways…it also reflects the very first day when God entered our world as a baby in that manger- it didn’t happen in the form of a shout, parade, or any type of extravagant announcement but in a silent night through a very low and simple type of people in the society like Mary and Joseph. What im trying to point out here is that if God has to be God let Him do His own ways own term…truth is from that event down to our time people in all walks of life are becoming a believer in Christ. God knew He endowed each one of us faculties which we can use in finding Him as He promised in His words Hebrews 11:6. He rewards those who diligently seek Him. And all things points out to Jesus Christ His Hebrews 1:1 and John 5:39-44…lastly, if God will gave up to our terms theologically He will no longer be God so let God be God Alex. Im praying for you…
39:00 Dr. Craig always brings up the probability of an event A given the prior probability of the existence of God. The problem is that since God can by definition do anything that is logically possible, the probability of event A is almost identically 100%. This "prior probability of God's existence" bit is just a reverse Uno card for any difficulty the apologist may encounter.
If God exists and has a choice whether event A takes place, then we still need to investigate the historical data and testimonies. Just because the possibility becomes 100%, that doesn’t do anything to the probability of the event, except to make it non-zero. Any of the other explanations could still be the correct one, it just no longer rules out a resurrection outright
Jesus's resurrection is when people are born again and filled with the Holy Spirit. They are then transformed and become Christ like. In the last days God will pour His spirit down. It happened to me as it is written in the book of Acts.
What evidence do we have that the disciples died for the belief in the resurrection? What if their conviction was in their previous failure to defend Jesus from being crucified therefore they felt guilty and worthy of death in the name of Jesus, not so much in his reserurrection.
It's a bit of a stretch (imho) to think the disciples were willing to die out of some guilt response rather than because they believed deeply they had to spread the news. When I was an unbeliever, I wondered if it was because they knew they could bring about change when their people were being repressed. I don't believe that anymore. I think they were motivated by what they saw and also the fact they probably believed the 2nd coming of Christ would be in their lifetime.
The philosophical gymnastics that Christians go through in the age of science and enlightenment, to conclude that the only plausible explanation is the resurrection was real, because otherwise one of the main tenets of Christianity falls down, is extraordinary and entertaining. Well done Alex for bringing this out.
The Resurrection is the hypothesis that best explains the data. Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapiede came to that view, even though he didn't convert to Christianity.
@@QCMP Assuming the data is accurate in the first place and then trying to find the best explanation, is a serious mistake. But it is not an obvious mistake, that's why people don't seem to realize that they rely on the data being correct, which presupposes the events happened as described, which is a self-validation in the end.
Craig presupposes god... thats the problem here. He's like If god exists then miracles are possible lol. So he's saying miracles not being true is wrong because god exists.!! .. Its a major flaw in his logic and is what stops him from seeing miracle claims like a normal person. Hes so biased it blinds him from true inquiry. He's basically got circular reasoning. Crazy that a man that smart cant see that in himself.
But it's not a presupposition. He's spent several decades defending - in great detail - the arguments and evidence for the existence of God. - RF Admin
The point Craig made about 1st century Jews being confronted with something that their own worldview was against is very apt. There is lots of historical evidence of the Jews projecting a Messiah figure and when it doesnt work , they later go at it again. That didnt happen with the Apostles or those early believers who were vastly Jewish. At least in the first 50-100 years.
It's a loaded question to try people to say no. The honest question is: what is the evidence that anyone could rise from the dead. The answer is: none.
It was almost unheard of ,that ,a person would be taken away within hours of their death ,the norm was ,when a person was dead on a cross ,the body was left for many weeks , 1 as a deterrent to others , 2 till a relative decided to claim the body ,which again was unusual ,as Roman’s would see that person as a possible sympathiser to the criminal ! The owner of the crypt ,must have been a very wealthy person to own such a crypt ! And also be under the close examination of Rome ,for their act ,so many non traditional or normal acts took place ,
It was not an insignificant Jew who went in and asked Pilate for the body, and Pilate, who was more sympathetic than the Jewish Sanhedrin, gave it to him. And when Pilate gave it to him you better believe the soldiers turned it over to him - Joseph of Arimathea. If anyone went after him for this act it wasn't Pilate or Rome; it would've been the Jews.
@@Caleb-xf5yn this also would have been a little out of character for Pilate ,as he was known to be not a very nice person ,and eventually replaced because of his brutal attitudes ,which is really saying something ,in those days !
Is Alex, listening, learning, and thinking though he may disagree or is he compiling arguments and seeking to formulate miss leading miss phrased questions or attempting to formulate rebuttals. Or is he like Peterson originally seeking truth we shall see in time..
Question for Dr. Craig: You stated that an isolated resurrection is not compatible with the Jewish worldview at the time of Christ, however, I would push back a little here and ask…..how are we supposed to understand Matthew 27:63-64……? (NIV) 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.” This verse I would argue makes it clear, that Christ’s adversaries, the Chief Priests and the Pharisees (v.62) who are also Jewish and share the same worldview as the disciples, are making Pilate aware that a isolated resurrection “claim” is a possibility and in response, Pilate orders guards to secure the tomb. How would you respond to this???
First, as in Lazarus's case, it may be that the dead who rose in Matthew 27 were merely revivified rather than resurrected to immortality. This seems at least plausible. Second, this pericope doesn't touch any of the facts used in Dr. Craig's case for the resurrection, which are largely agreed upon as historical facts within New Testament scholarship. Matthew attaches the event to the *crucifixion,* not the resurrection, and the crucifixion is one of the most historically well-attested facts about Jesus. Third, it's possible that Matthew didn't mean for the pericope to be taken literally, but as apocalyptic imagery which was not uncommon in Jewish literature of the time. Fourth, the claim was that the Jews did not in fact expect the resurrection of an isolated individual prior to the general resurrection of the dead. Note that the Pharisees themselves did not believe that Jesus would rise from the dead, requesting that Pilate place guards at the tomb to prevent anyone from *stealing the body*. Dr. Craig gives further details on these issues here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/qualms-about-the-resurrection-of-jesus. - RF Admin
Even if bones were found of Jesus it would make no difference. He could have come back spiritually as a person. The Gospel of Peter says that Jesus went up to Heaven on the cross. Then he returned different which matches other gospels.
I love Alex...and maybe he was just playing softball as to not alienate Craig, because he could easily have eviscerated Craig on multiple points... Extraordinary claims should require LESS evidence...? I am gobsmacked...😮😮😮😵
Alex O'Connor ranks up there as one of my favorite interviewers. He asks excellent questions; he gives ample time to respond; he listens carefully to the responses an asks insightful follow-up questions. And then his willingness to acknowledge and appreciate a good argument even when he disagrees--that's just profoundly rare. Thanks again, Dr. Craig, for an encouraging and rigorous defense of the faith. And thanks Alex for being a facilitator and exemplar of good dialogue.
Your definition of rigorous is a bit, let's say, too charitable for yourself
I pray Alex comes to the lord. I feel like he would want nothing more than to believe.
@@derekstallwood3673 And you likely care more about self-affirmation than you do your lord, and that's what enabled you to colonize the world, with your lord being silent and worse when it mattered
@derekstallwood3673 And you likely care more about self-affirmation than you do your lord, and that's what enabled you to colonize the world, with your lord being silent and worse when it mattered.
He said that he is tired of fighting, he wants discussions, and that's what he does
As a believer in Jesus, (as God and my savior) I appreciate Mr. O'Conner's ability to make me personally challenge my beliefs and do so in a gracious manor.
Thank you for this beautiful conversation!
Alex does a very good job of presenting challenging questions in a respectful way. This interview was very constructive.
I'm appreciating Alex more and more every day.
Always a good conversation.
ALWAYS THE BEST VIBES FROM THESE TWO ❤
Thank you Dr. Craig. Great job 👏
This was a very absorbing debate and discussion. Furthermore, it was conducted in an air of civility and respect, which made it all the more pleasurable for the viewer. Many thanks for uploading. It was liked and subscribed.
I 've listened to these two men on different occasions and are truly civil in their approach,even is opposing views. This conversation started with Dr. Craig giving condolences to the passing of the Queen,, without knowing of Alex's critique on the Monarchy he had done. In humility, Alex admitted his position and both men carried on. Wonderful to see and hear!!!
How about instead of years worth of the same conversations over and over Alex read the New Testament to find God?
@@SpaceCadet4Jesushe did read New testament. Much moreso that the old one. It's just that he reads it through the critic lens
@@SpaceCadet4Jesusreading the new testament was a huge contributor to why Alex - correctly - believes it's a complete load of nonsense
@@davidstaffell as an agnostic I read the New testament. It didn't read like complete load of nonsense to me. It made sense as it was describing historical events. I really wasn't a fan of history but that's my fault.
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus As an Agnostic, I too read the New Testament, along with the critical works that were written on it by other scholars and historians. It isn't a complete load of nonsense, but to call it as describing historical events is a bit of a stretch.
Much love mr. Craig, I look up to you! Great questions by Alex O'Connor.
The conversation at the last part was epic. I like how Craig explain his case about the resurrection of Jesus.
This was really nice to watch ❤
As a Christian, I always appreciate listening to Mr. O'Connor. He is open, fair, honest, firm, insightful, and respectful. I know a lot of Christians that could learn Christian conduct from him. Thank you, Alex.
But relgious conduct is already exists which is narcisstic 😂. If you want other conduct such as O'Connor's then you have to become an atheist or agnostic once again. Just the way you were born 😅
Who reaps the awards in the afterlife, Alex or the Christians you know who could learn from him?
@quintessence3991 Non sequitur
I think he wants to believe so bad. Doubting Thomas… he will come round
@@Thomas-n1n4oYou actually just described the flawed reasoning of Christians. Good job!
i am a christian and i really love Alex's questions and interviews. Well spoken and quite smart fella. I pray this guy finds his way to Jesus. This discussions help whether you believe in God or not. I used to be a skeptic and a drug addict for years with no real goal or purpose. Now my purpose is just to save my soul and anyone else i can along the way. I used to be full of nihilism and lust and anger and just praying alone changed that. Im still a struggling christian... but i believe its real and fear that it is enough to live the best life i can in Gods word.
That’s an awesome story and I’m glad you found your way but you can tell that story without god and it would be the same exact story except you’d realize the person that helped you the most was yourself. Human beings are capable of great things. Also why would god let you get to that dark place to begin with? Seems odd he’d want you to suffer.
@@coolguy1127 than why dont humans do great things? And suffering makes us better people in the end.
@@coolguy1127 when we believe in something greater than ourselves it changes you and not only you but your world view. And thanks for the kind words. Try praying. I used to think it was hocus pocus... But things really did change after. It sounds crazy i know. But i prayed for a new job and healing and i got those things almost instantly. Try it for a month and really look back at what you prayed about. You will see a difference. Much love brother.
@@kylec1411 since when don’t humans do great things? Art, Science, poetry, music are all areas humans have done great things in.
I strongly disagree with suffering makes ppl better. Many abusive ppl were abused when they were younger. Did all the innocent ppl who suffered and died during the holocaust become better ppl for it? Why would an all loving all powerful being want his greatest creation to suffer. And if you’re a Christian the idea of animals suffering contradicts what the Bible says. The idea of humans, souls, sin and suffering are all connected but if animals don’t have souls they shouldn’t suffer.
@@kylec1411 Humans do great things. Not sure I understand your question.
Thanks for having him on!
Sublime interview! Even though there is disagreement at times, there is so much respect between them. I pray that Alex sees the Truth.
Another condescending Christian. You don't know "the truth" any more than he does.
@@todds.6028how do you know?
You don't.
You know nothing (quite literally) of God. Although you oncé did but chose not to).
We, the Christians, do.
Most of us have been as ignorant as you before the penny dropped...
You know nothing about this experience and yet still you pontificate and claim 'knowledge' and superiority (falsely) in your complete denial of your predicament.
One day you will see.
@matthewstokes1608 That's the difference. I'm humble enough to admit that I don't know. You condescending arrogant Christians are just SO certain that your way is the right and true way, and anybody who believes anything different from you is wrong. In fact, you're SOOOOO astoundingly arrogant that you would presume to know what I, a complete stranger on the internet, know or don't know and choose or don't choose. Arrogant arrogant arrogant. So fucking arrogant.
He has!
Maybe you'll see that one day and stop being self-righteous.
You mean you hope he lowers his epistemic bar to your level 🙄
I like how both had time to flow . I can imagine people in those old times having the same type of discussions
I'm Christian and as many have stated, love the heck outta Alex. Very patient, smart, respectful, transparent, and open to God which is so cool. I have learned much from his conversations with others. I feel God uses him.
Alex is honest. God loves honest people. When the time comes our Lord will claim him as his. Conversion of a truth lover is just a matter of time
As an atheist I appreciate people like Alex. He helps me to practice patience and realize I was once a christian myself, and it took time for me to deconstruct and learn things that left me with no choice but to walk away from religious doctrine and ideology
That’s too bad. What did you learn?
@@jamesjones11301994 too bad? Nah that's a very good thing. Excellent in fact. And learn as far as what?
Not even alex thinks this way he's a skepticcc not a "this is definitely not true"kind of guy@@thaimperial97
ruclips.net/video/23UNLLbOS3w/видео.htmlsi=--3_SAMTE0eD4g9D
and now you also pee sitting down
Mr Craig, and Alex 🫶🙌✝️🇮🇱🌍🪐
If he did, where is he? Why can’t we see him? He makes sure people know he resurrected with a physical body to then have a spiritual body. “Bruh , I saw him for real.” “Ok, show me!” “Well now he’s in a spiritual world we can’t see.” “Ok, thanks for nothing.”
Asking where he is presupposes that he is currently within the spatial dimension. However, if he has transcended the spatial dimension, then the question makes as much sense as asking what the number 3 tastes like. Likewise, vision of objects requires the emission of light. If he has transcended the physical universe, then, again, the question of why we can't see him makes no sense.
So, why think that Jesus has not transcended the physical universe? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg I think airforex raised a legitimate question. So 2000 years ago Jesus rose and no one has seen him since. An honest court of law even if it was pro Christian could not rule in favor of a risen Jesus. The empty tomb testimonies have no consistency. And it was all written after non witness Paul decided the risen Christ was the cornerstone stone of the new religion. So there is just not enough fact for me to believe. The extra dimensional Jesus is a stretch for sure.
@@Austinite333plenty of people have seen him through the ages. I wouldn't be a Christian if God hadn't appeared to me, and subsequently, appeared a few other times after that, and I'm not alone on this.
But I can't prove an experience, even if I can accurately recall it.
But his appearances are MY proof, you'll have to get your own proof and starting with doubt isn't going to get you there. Guaranteed.
@ I have seen a few unexplainable things in my 70 years here so I will not ever criticize such an experience. Having said that are we sure what we see is what we think it is? In a sense this would be an inter dimensional experience and can we trust the source? Despite my statements I am not opposed someone’s personal beliefs but I have a problem with organized religion. I won’t go deeper. Thanks for the reply.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Jesus is supposed to be BODILY resurrected so where is his body gone? In space? The whole myth is absurd but of course in fiction EVERYTHING is possible!
I am a Christian and respect the way Alex graciously asked questions to Dr Craig
Alex is a great interviewer. I wonder if any of his views have shifted or developed further either toward or away from theism in the two years since this interview.
My thoughts exactly. I could see him becoming a Christian and a great apologist for the faith. I'm hoping.
I always enjoy Dr. Craig’s insight. God bless. ✝️👍
Hearing Bill provide condolences to anti-royalist Alex was dramatic irony at its best.
The biggest difference made apparent was that the "queen" actually existed.
Cringe worthy as only an American can make it.... 😂
If you guys haven’t, you should watch Alex debate atheists arguing FOR Christianity, it’s fascinating. He’s a very interesting man.
I’m a believer in the living Lord am I tell you what , Alex is a very intellectual person, I pray he finds the lord in he’s journey of truth etc.
God is very real people
Happy thanksgiving to all.
Yeah which god?
@@oldtimestrengthgym The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior as foretold by the Old Testament prophets.
@@oldtimestrengthgym Xenu
What is god?
@@bogdankp At last count, about 900 make believe entities.
The Comforter will bring to remembrance and comes with comfort!
Praise Jesus Christ our resurrected King ❤
The original version of the oldest gospel of Mark did not originally include any appearances of Jesus after the women visited the tomb on Easter morning. Mark originally ended at verse 16:8, with no appearances of the risen Jesus - merely a statement that the young man told the women that Jesus' body was gone and they fled in terror, telling no one. The later Gospels made up the resurrection fiction and that was then also added to Mark from the Luke version 1,500 years later during the King James project to harmonize the Gospels.
No thanks ✋🏽
Thanks
It’s interesting listening to O’Connor converse with someone like Dawkins, because it’s clear how much stronger of a grasp on the fundamental beliefs Christians hold that Alex has compared to Dawkins. He really tries to steel man the Christian argument as much as possible so it fosters good conversation because he appears as if he’s at least having the discussion in good faith. Something you don’t get from many popular atheists.
If only William Lane Craig argued with equally good faith....
Which he doesn't.
The number of times it has been pointed out to him that Pascal's Wager is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED because it isn't a dichotomy to choose between the christian god or no god, and in fact you would have to take the SAME wager equally against ALL god claims....
But of course, he IGNORES this flaw and continues to base his entire foundation on the fallacy instead
SO FUCKING DISHONEST
@enigmaticaljedi6808 he often argues the case for the existence of god, generally. Not even the Christian God, and this is where I see him use Pascal’s wager most. Even then, there are differences in the afterlife claims of different religions, and Pascal’s wager may be more appropriate to some than others. Either way, using an argument you believe is flawed isn’t the same as straw manning your opponents argument and simply calling them dumb or morally bankrupt. Alex doesn’t do that, Dawkins does.
Alex probably does have more specific theological knoweldge than does Dawkins, because of his field of study, but the way alex talks to theists is not the result of him finding their positions worthwhile, but rather being civil for the sake of geting to keep interviewing them and getting subs and views off of it, instead of burning bridges. Dawkins doesn't seem to cafre as much about that, since hes in the tail end of his career/life, and as such, doesn't mince words,. He doesn't get chrisitan beliefs wrong, he just doesn't ptu time into twisting them into somethingsomewhat palatable, when they aren't.
@@enigmaticaljedi6808 okay, for Pascal's wager, we've got to start somewhere, so should we begin with the mythological gods?
How about we start with Zeus?
@@SpaceCadet4JesusZeus doesn't work because he himself is a creation and therefore doesn't deserve any worship. The wager only works with a God that is the creator. To my knowledge only the God of the Bible fits.
Awesome!!
I continue to pray that Alex will one day come to Christ.
How do you do that?
@@tcuisixyou believe Jesus is god, died for you and rose again.
@@Bvoorhis03 i mean pray
@tcuisix Now, before praying the prayer of salvation, you must recognize that you are a sinner and that your sins have separated you from your maker. But, it isn't just that you have committed sins against a holy and righteous God, but that you were born into a body that craves sin. A nature which you have inherited from your first parents, who rebelled against God and wanted to go their own way. In doing so, a separation between God and man was established. But God who is rich in mercy entered into flesh like a hand filling a glove, lived a morally perfect life in thought word and deed, then went to be hanged on a rugged roman cross in your place as your representative, as your substitute, as your savior. God has given His stamp of approval (your receipt) by raising Jesus from the dead. Jesus then showed himself to around 500 people who later died proclaiming this gospel message. Now, if you believe this, then the next step is to confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, Roman's 10:9 and 10:10 in your Bible. Let me give you a short prayer. You may pray: Dear God, forgive my sins. I repent for going my own way. I believe you have provided a bridge back to yourself, the Lord Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus, I thank you for dying on account of all my sins, and I ask of you to come into my heart. Please be my Lord and personal Savior. Thank you for saving me today. Then say whatever else you want to say. I hope this helps. God bless you, brother. There is no need for elaborate articulation when talking to God. Speak to Him from your heart.
@@Bvoorhis03do you really literally believe that?
I would've liked more discussion of actual facts, eg proof the disciples even existed, proof the Roman's observed these people, proof from outside sources about Jesus, the disciples, the tomb, the resurrection, the critical analysis of the gospel and also of Paul.
I honestly love Alex. Very intelligent and tries to be fair. I do think he is fooling himself when he describes himself as open to belief.
I feel the opposite. He’s closer than ever. If he can get over the ego hump of “letting his followers down”, he’ll get there. God willing.
I think he is a closet Christian posing as a skeptic in order to draw other skeptics into thoughtful consideration of Christianity. Im half-joking, but also half-not.
@@VirtualVirtue23I believe this too haha
the question is: do you have E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E god is real or perhaps you are fooling yourself?
This atheist is most impressed by this dialog. I am most impressed by the cordiality and respect shown for the opponents. I don't recall seeing one ad hominem attack. I was also impressed by WLC's comments on the separation of Church and state. I can't wait to share them with my Christian Nationalist acquaintances.
Why do you associate with christian nationalists?
35:45 indeed!!! If i got to a 50/50 i would choose Christ
What if it was a 50/50 split between Christianity and Islam? Remember, Islam has Hell and Heaven too. Does the severity of a threat/carrot on a stick impact how true a claim is?
@seanpierce9386 2 religions can never reach a 50/50 because they contradict way too much. For everything to come down to 1 fact where both religions struggle to answer you need to have at least thought everything else can be true. Now I don't believe any 2 religions can have such a situation. But if it does happen then you will have to gamble. Now, when it comes to Islam and Christianity before I even consider heaven of Islam, the Qur'an says things that are just false, and denies the crucifixion of all things. The heaven of Islam is basically a place for six with many women designed for that and drunkeness I mean that's a bit different.
No the severity of the opposite doesn't mean that the option you pick is true. However, we live as if lots of things are true especially in our relationships even if its not always true. In your relationship with anyone close, when they do something really hurtful, you assume that they were "well-meaning or didn't mean to hurt you" but this is sometimes not true. But even knowing that those we love are capable of hurting us like that, we still always assume the best. Therefore, adding a religion is just one more thing but with a great possibility. Provided that you do come to a 50/50 you need to read what they teach more and more what they teach, eventually 1 religion will drop. Christianity is Christ himself, study him. Islam is the whole Qur'an, study it greatly.
Hope this helps 🙏
@@Masowe. Let’s say that there are two gods, Alice and Bob, and I asked them to tell me which one is real by flipping a coin. If it’s heads, Alice exists, but if it’s tails, Bob exists. I do not reveal the result to you. If you accept my claims, then there’s a precise 50/50 split between the positions, despite being mutually exclusive.
As your primary objection to Islam, you use an argument from incredulity. See, if you were a Muslim and understood things in context, you would believe. And unless you are an inerrantist, the Bible itself contains false claims that conflict with scientific consensus. I don’t see the asymmetry here. But that’s not the point. My question is a hypothetical intended to point out a flaw in your earlier reasoning. And from above, you can’t claim that it’s an impossible predicament.
You should study what Muslims actually believe, not just what the Qur’an says. From my understanding, there are many teachings passed down orally as part of the tradition. Also, you should know that I’m an ex-Christian who studied the Bible with the explicit purpose of reassuring my belief. As you can tell, that didn’t work out.
@seanpierce9386 1) what muslims believe is irrelevant because Islam can be true without Muslims believing it. And what do you mean by Muslims? They believe lots of different things that are more often than not mutually exclusive, the same is for all religions. When you take the shahada (Islamic way of converting) you agree that Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his messenger but definition you agree Muhammad's teachings came from God. This has nothing to do with what Muslims believe but what You believe. It's the equivalent of Jesus is my Lord and Saviour who died for me. Why would you pledge your life to something that someone believes?
2) Christianity is not the bible, as a matter of fact, you can be a Christian and reject some books in the Bible. This is why I said the Qur'an is Islam, Christ Jesus is Christianity. The same is not true for Islam, you can't reject the Qur'an and be a muslim but you can reject the bible or some things in the Bible and be a Christian. I believe in the Bible because i believe in Christ not the other way round and I have met new testament Christians. I have a high view of the bible and reading it daily gets me better and better not just intellectual but also practical in the 1timothy way of thoroughly equips me for ALL good works. For me, reading the bible does make me believe it more and more but I also have more questions than ever before. I have the classic experience by Professor Jonn Lennox as he put it, "Christianity for me was mind expanding ".
Your coin flip didn't quite get me the point that you were making, I guess because coin flipping isn't my thing, I often go back to look for more ways to reach a specific conclusion.
@@Masowe.Jesus believed the old testament did he not? I suppose he didn't quote every bit of of it, but I'd say it could be safe to say that. So it may not be a good idea to 'reject' books in the bible and be a christian. Perhaps a better way to put it is 'having doubts' or 'don't understand it'. All of that is just fine by the way. Trust in someone, namely Jesus, doesn't require us to disassemble all of ancient biblical/cosmic history in order to be with him.
The radical nature of the resurrection is radical by virtue of principle, not radical public amazement. The standard of Christianity is not that you be amazed, but rather, that you understand the implication.
I don’t fear death, in fact I look forward to it, I do however, not crave pain or suffering, but having been lonely and losing my wife 10 years ago, I have little to look forward to except of course the wonderful presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, heaven and everything that awaits me including what would be my ex-wife.
There was a time perhaps when I did fear death but since I have become a Christian have a peace. I’ve had a heart attack and probably secretly expecting to have another one that would be ideal, especially if I was asleep but hey, we are in God hands.
Praying for you, brother. I can’t imagine your hardship, but you are never truly alone, for you are in-dwelt by the Spirit of God. May He bless you.
My Almighty God extend His protecting and healing hand over you, , give you comfort on the loss of your beloved wife, and bring full, complete and lasting health to you. Amen 🙏🙏🛐🛐✝✝❤❤
The actual conversation starts @ 16:25.
Dr. Craig is no wide-eyed newbie. In 1973, entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler. In 1975, Craig began doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham in England, writing on the cosmological argument under the direction of John Hick. He was awarded a doctorate in 1977. Source: Wikipedia.
Just because he has a PhD in philosophy does not make him a historian. Far from it. That’s why many of his arguments fail.
@@patrickwoods2213 I do not have a degree in philosophy but I know a lot about it. Attending university courses for credit is not necessary when books are readily available for self-study in many fields.
@@freddiefreihofer7716 I get what you’re saying, but being a historian requires a lot of more than just reading- many historians are trained in ancient languages, have gone on archaeological digs, and often times specialize in a very specific area of the field - and are constantly in contact with other historians on being accountable. Most historians that I have seen interviewed who are religious, are hesitant to take the Bible as complete history or if they believe that - they will at least point out that it’s their personal belief and not fact. Craig doesn’t do this. He is so quick to jump on “the Bible is history” bandwagon. Which is why I don’t take him seriously.
@@patrickwoods2213 I think its foolish that work and study in philosophy, historiology, and theology are irrelevant. His arguments are very consistent which is partially why his following is so high.
Just a thought on this subject. I have no animosity toward Christians per se. But the idea that the resurrection is the only explanation for what happened afterward doesn't make sense to me for a handful of reasons. The reanimation of a body that has been decaying for three days is impossible. The Roman process of crucifixion did not allow for a body to be taken down from the cross. That was part of the humiliation, to leave the body to be picked apart by vultures, etc. The disciples going on to the spread the Gospel and going to their deaths rather than recant their testimonies that Jesus had risen from the tomb might be explained this way: they lived all their lives under the hopelessness of the iron glove rule of Rome. Jesus, as the Messiah, represented their one and only hope. When he was tortured to death they were traumatized. They were incapable of accepting the truth. Like cult members in the modern age, the more evidence they were given of their beliefs being false, the more they dug their heels in to defend their faith. The disciples of Jesus, unlike the followers of Mohammed, knew him. They had sat at his feet, looked into his eyes and heard his voice when he spoke his prophecies. They loved him desperately.
Great conversation. Most atheist make it more difficult than how simple God made it. The evidence is clear but those that don’t want to accept it will continue to FIND a reason not to believe but will accept all other history as history with less historical evidence.
Not true at ALL. Completely false and complete nonsense. Any historian who’s honest accepts evidence on a case by case basis.
The difference between the gospels, and regular history is that history books don’t make supernatural claims or divine interventions from gods.
As an atheist, I look at all history the same - we should seek evidence through historical corroboration, archeology, and studying writings. While the Bible certainly has some of these things - the majority of the Bible is not backed by historical methods.
There is no way one can prove supernatural claims. This is completely consistent when critiquing the Bible.
You just literally proved my point. There’s more concrete evidence for the Bible and the gospels than all the rest of history combined. God made it very simple for us but YOU are the one making it harder by finding any reason to reject God ignoring the historical evidence.
@@Backuptothehood55 You’re only making blanket assertions. Where is all of this awesome evidence for the Bible? You are up against many historians disagreeing with you.
@@patrickwoods2213 youtube.com/@diggingfortruth?si=Cw2C5iT49qwqewbL
@@patrickwoods2213 This channel is a great starting foundation of archeological findings authenticating the Bible.
Yes, bring all with great physical strength in front!
I don't think God's love for the world equals Him "desperately" wanting anything from us at all. He magnificently accomplished something infinitely priceless on our behalf by an inexpressibly precious sacrifice. If we don't want to enjoy that benefit, His joy is not decreased even one iota. No desperation there. Desperation is your condition, not His.
Yes, also why don’t people take into account the results? The likelihood that some lie from 2000 years ago would be so pervasive in the world today is ridiculous. Even a true fact from antiquity would basically require God in order to accomplish what it has.
@Izamen how in any way does that mean the claims are true at all?
@@Izamen What has it accomplished? People believe stuff that is not true. Nothing new there.
The bus your waiting to catch is over 2000 years late....
@@williammceuen8831Never was there more perfect an inversion of a truism
@Izamen I don't follow this line of reasoning. Islam has a quarter of the world as followers does this make it divine?
Likewise unto many professing!
I left Christianity because of Alex years ago, it's fascinating to hear this discussion as an atheist. I can't believe I used to believed.
What do you take to be Alex's strongest argument or objection? - RF Admin
I’d say I believed more than I did not my entire life. But I’ve been leaning back into Christianity more. This podcast I’ll share with you I think has sealed the deal for me. Hope you find peace, I randomly stumbled on your comment and felt compelled to share
ruclips.net/video/nczxm1EH_hw/видео.html
You do realize that O'Conner thinks if himself that he's an unconscious robot ? He's nuts !
@@ReasonableFaithOrg The lack of credible evidence of miracles and the supernatural is a pretty strong case against Christianity. When was the last time you heard of a really convincing supernatural miracle claim?
Alex and my pop Craig= "i" Am. Shared "i" Am come forth!
WLC is always a wonderful speaker.
This was a great conversation. And if I were a betting man, I would bet that Alex eventually turns to Christ and accepts him as his Lord and Savior. I think this because Alex is both highly intelligent, but unlike many of his fellow atheist intellectuals, he actually seems like he is having conversations in good faith and simply trying to find what the best evidence is, whereas pretty much every other atheist intellectual I’ve ever heard speak is more interested in simply winning the argument. It’s the combination of those two things, intelligence and good faith inquiry, that I think ultimately will lead Alex to the correct conclusion. And I think that after that, Alex will go on to be one of the world’s greatest Christian apologists, taking over the reigns from gentlemen like Dr. Craig, who are facing retirement.
Thank you for this conversation, Alex!
Glad Doctor Craig shot down Sagan's 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' principle. Not only is it unsubstantiated it's utterly untrue. If you're assessing a claim with abductive reasoning (and since the Resurrection is a purported historical event abduction is really the only show in town) how extraordinary the evidence is or isn't is irrelevant. The only thing that maters is whether the Resurrection is a plausible explanation for the evidence and, if we want to be thorough, whether the Resurrection is the MOST plausible explanation for the evidence.
It SORT OF applies to inductive reasoning. If you get a crazy result then you should repeat your experiment or observation and ideally get OTHER people to try to replicate the result or observation. If they can't, then something was probably wonky with your situation. But that's just how the Sir Bacon's methodology works normally. Extraordinary really doesn't factor into things.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Nothing wrong with it. One should expect extraordinary evidence for the resurrection. And that's what God delights to give. And most "christians" don't even have that evidence, but have a phony faith no better than that of other dead religions. They think faith is blind. Blind faith is FOOL'S faith. If you had that evidence you would never call it ordinary. Sagan wasn't wrong to ask for it. His problem was he never did ask for it, because he would never believe or stoop so low as to ask; so he thought it was a clever reply to something he fully never intended on accepting. His blindness was total.
What allows one to put the resurrection in the 'plausable' category?
@@mattyd2818
Because it harmonizes the body of evidence that's being examined.
If you don't think it's a plausible explanation that's probably because you're confusing probability with plausibility. Given that people don't reliably rise from the dead it appears to be a highly improbable event.
@bennewby9600 I did not get an actual answer. Focus please on the actual claim. WHY or HOW can anyone actually think a resurrection is possible or plausable?
What allows one to conclude that literally any other natural explanation is LESS plausable?
I am not asking what you think is evidence because there is literally zero information that is actually indicative of a resurrection.
@@mattyd2818
You did. I provided a brief description of what plausibility means within the context of abductive reasoning.
And just an fyi, saying that there's 'no evidence' for the resurrection within the context of abductive reasoning in nonsense. Evidence is merely the body of facts that we're trying to account for. Mister Craig was nice enough to lay out the relevant facts in the discussion.
1) Jesus was crucified under the authority of Rome
2) Jesus was buried under the authority of the Sanhedrin
3) His tomb was found empty by His female followers
4) His followers were convinced they saw Him alive afterwards
5) His followers were willing to suffer and die to affirm that He rose from the dead
The resurrection is a plausible (one that harmonizes) explanation of these facts, the supernatural nature of that explanation (improbability) is irrelevant to whether it's plausible or not.
Which natural explanation would you suggest as more plausible (or even plausible at all)? The conspiracy? The wrong tomb? The mass hallucination? The swooning Jesus? Maybe something else?
I hope you aren't a Jesus myther because in that case I'm sorely wasting my time.
wow❤❤❤
Jesus is risen!
then he should be charged with infanticide, genocide, and animal cruelty
Luke 16:31
"- If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." ~ Father Abraham
Alex once he converts will be a huge Evangelist.
Highly doubtful that happens considering philosophy and physics (even less so) are the last rabbit holes for your god to scurry down
If he ends up believing in a god it will very likely be a deist version of god - not the biblical god.
Alex seems too rational to believe in any religion.
@patrickwoods2213 they all say that until they convert and dig into them.
@alanndrake2619 incredibly innacurate. Seems like you havent a clue. Hmm...
@@imabeast7560and what is your religion?
Creation will say, so precise!
The evidence for Jesus death and resurrection is overwhelmingly strong.
Yes, it's written in a book that it happened, what more evidence would one need.
@ there’s plenty more
@@dsplodge86 No, I think this one is more than enough for us high IQ citizens of the world.
@ I hope you’re not suggesting you are in the high IQ group, based on the way you reason.
@dsplodge86 There is nothing that indicates a resurrection occured necassarily. I challenge you to name at least one.
Many atheists come across as angry and vindictive. Alex is remarkably calm in disposition, which alludes to good faith inquiry. May the Holy Spirit enlighten his heart with the gospel truth
There are many more atheists like Alex I can assure you.
...there are plenty of angry Christians/theists as well
Well understandable see, they're both religious of course they're all angry defending their faith. But the Christian should be ashamed of themselves because that's not how they should behave according to their faith.
Alex has lost his way but he could easily come back.
Alex thy Friend kind of love. Even my "AM" Yeshua Jesus Christ said, for many have NOT KNOWN HIM?
Gonna be a wild day when Alex meets Jesus. Hopefully, sooner than later.
Hopefully, sooner than later? Meaning...?
@@zylo1967In other words, hopefully he accepts Jesus now whilst he's alive, vs witnessing Jesus reject him in the afterlife because Alex denied belief in him in this life. Hope that makes sense 😊
@@itsmethebigg9568 What a horribly dishonest reply. 🤦♂️
@@itsmethebigg9568 I hope that's what he meant. It can be interpreted differently. It's not going to happen, but that's another discussion.
@@zylo1967 that's exactly what he meant. i'm still waiting on the one that lost her cookies to answer my question.
Craig is brilliant as usual. None of the alternative explanation of the historical facts are even plausibly used by atheists today such as the halucination theory which doesn't explain the empty tomb which requires the conspiracy theory, which contradicts the halucination theory, etc... Atheists are just left with agnosticism without being able to explain the well established historical facts.
What makes you think the empty tomb is a historical fact? Even Habermas who very much wants it to be does not go that far. I'm curious how you come to a different view.
@@Kvothe3 "What makes you think the empty tomb is a historical fact? Even Habermas who very much wants it to be does not go that far" Not sure where you got the idea Habermas doesn't think the empty tomb is a historical fact. See link below. The vast majority of new testament scholars / historians (including non Christian) agree to the historical reliability of the empty tomb. This has really been solidified over the last few years with recent developments. To deny the empty tomb, you would have to float some alternative such as the disciples stole the body which is what the jewish leadership and Romans claimed at the time. That means the jewish leadership and romans admit that the tomb was empty! That's enemy attestation which lends credibility to the historical account of the empty tomb. Even Jesus enemies admit this. If the tomb was not empty, you can be sure they would have produced the body and squashed the claim of resurrection which would have destroyed Christianity before it even got started. The historical source shows the empty tomb was discovered by a group of women which is highly unlikely to be made up at that time since women were not considered reliable eye witnesses. We also know that the disciples all inspected the tomb. And much more... If you don't want to take Christian scholars / historians word for it (because of your bias), then read what non Christian scholars have to say on the matter. But you have to seek out actual credible scholars / historians that make a living in the field.
www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/the-empty-tomb-of-jesus/
@@elkhuntr2816Don't get me wrong, Habermas absolutely believes in the empty tomb. But he does not include it in his list of bedrock historical facts. Notice as well that he never gives any support for his claims about majority this and that. I know he is planning to publish it all in I believe volume 3 of his work, but to this pout all we have is hearsay. Would it surprise you to know that the majority of contemporary scholars who study the Qur'an believe the claims it presents about Allah? Why not? @elkhuntr2816
@@elkhuntr2816 How would you feel about a returning Jesus who comes back every 10 years, and performs miracles and speaks to us, that would be pretty cool wouldnt it. How could any other belief system compete with that. He stays for a few days, then tells us his next return date and location, and it comes to pass everytime, whats not to like about that?
@@bonnie43uk "How would you feel about a returning Jesus who comes back every 10 years, and performs miracles and speaks to us, that would be pretty cool wouldnt it. How could any other belief system compete with that. He stays for a few days, then tells us his next return date and location, and it comes to pass everytime, whats not to like about that?" Whats not to like about it is that its not true. Its a man made fantasy. This is why we have so many false religions, man making up his own. You have to follow the evidence and determine what is actually true. But that's only the beginning, belief alone is not enough. Once you know the God of the bible is true and Jesus is who he claimed to be, then you have a decision to make. Accept him or reject him and go your own way. The consequences of that decision are enormous.
yes
Of course!
The life of an atheist might potentially be more difficult and lonely, but I am firmly convinced that it is also braver and more honest. A religious person might argue that it would be tragic to miss out on an afterlife, but we would respond that it would be tragic to realize, at the end of this life that only comes once, that one had wasted the whole thing on a folly. The truth is a worthy trade for facing up to reality.
If there is no God, it makes absolutely no difference what one makes of their life.
@@Mr-Thou Well, there's always the person's own experience of it. A life spent helping others, full of friendships and meaningful work, is bound to be more enjoyable than one spent otherwise. A full life also helps ease the suffering of others, at lease potentially. Just because you acknowledge that your existence is finite doesn't mean you don't care about anyone else who comes afterwards.
The Pharisee Paul was a relentless persecutor of the Jesus-Jews because they proclaimed the crucified Jesus to be the resurrected Jewish Messiah. Then Paul had a miraculous encounter with the Christ deity on the road to Damascus. Sometimes it takes a miraculous encounter to become a believer.
Do the “benefits” of Mormonism also exclude them from the need for a higher standard of proof for angelic visits, gold plates, Urim and Thumum, and Peter James and John giving Joseph Smith priesthood keys?
Alex and Craig none ABLE to hold! Why? Will be crushed nor consumed in front!
4:15 the way alex just starts smiling is hilarious
What about Lazarus... wasn't he first?
Plane crashing,
Alex “God save me”
God “ok I’ll miraculously place you safely in your bed”
Alex awakes “that was weird”
If one does not believe Love is both true and manifest and the origin of all, and therefore able make demands upon one's conscience, how then could one possibly believe that that very same Love can and did walk out of the grave by His own power?
"How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?" (John 5) Deus caritas est.
What eye witness account of Jesus' resurrection do we have?
Matthew, Mark, the information given to Luke by eyewitnesses, John, Paul. See "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" by Richard Bauckham. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Can you give me those verses?
@@jackjohnson2171 go read the gospels
@@ReasonableFaithOrgPeter
Nice
Alex can ask some dumb questions some times but its good exposure for WLC and other christians to more secular audiences and the gospel
Can you please provide some examples of dumb questions he asked? Thanks.
@@christopheespic Sure, at 12:35 he asks "how many popsicles do you think Jesus would have eaten if he were alive" really, that question has no place in a formal interview
@@radscorpion8 what? Please, get your timestamp right 🙄.
My cousin once told me who is an agnostic- with all the chaos, suffering of this world why not God appears in our time 20th century where most are develop and literate. In the bible its the same plead that rich man ask Abraham to bring back lazarus to death so his unbelieving brothers might believe. Alex here is something you must think about God as being God His character, and His ways…it also reflects the very first day when God entered our world as a baby in that manger- it didn’t happen in the form of a shout, parade, or any type of extravagant announcement but in a silent night through a very low and simple type of people in the society like Mary and Joseph. What im trying to point out here is that if God has to be God let Him do His own ways own term…truth is from that event down to our time people in all walks of life are becoming a believer in Christ. God knew He endowed each one of us faculties which we can use in finding Him as He promised in His words Hebrews 11:6. He rewards those who diligently seek Him. And all things points out to Jesus Christ His Hebrews 1:1 and John 5:39-44…lastly, if God will gave up to our terms theologically He will no longer be God so let God be God Alex. Im praying for you…
39:00
Dr. Craig always brings up the probability of an event A given the prior probability of the existence of God. The problem is that since God can by definition do anything that is logically possible, the probability of event A is almost identically 100%. This "prior probability of God's existence" bit is just a reverse Uno card for any difficulty the apologist may encounter.
If God exists and has a choice whether event A takes place, then we still need to investigate the historical data and testimonies. Just because the possibility becomes 100%, that doesn’t do anything to the probability of the event, except to make it non-zero. Any of the other explanations could still be the correct one, it just no longer rules out a resurrection outright
ruclips.net/video/23UNLLbOS3w/видео.htmlsi=--3_SAMTE0eD4g9D
Jesus's resurrection is when people are born again and filled with the Holy Spirit. They are then transformed and become Christ like. In the last days God will pour His spirit down. It happened to me as it is written in the book of Acts.
I wish you could only extract the most important parts of the discussion.
What evidence do we have that the disciples died for the belief in the resurrection? What if their conviction was in their previous failure to defend Jesus from being crucified therefore they felt guilty and worthy of death in the name of Jesus, not so much in his reserurrection.
It's a bit of a stretch (imho) to think the disciples were willing to die out of some guilt response rather than because they believed deeply they had to spread the news. When I was an unbeliever, I wondered if it was because they knew they could bring about change when their people were being repressed. I don't believe that anymore. I think they were motivated by what they saw and also the fact they probably believed the 2nd coming of Christ would be in their lifetime.
Alex O’Connor vs Wes Huff
The world is not ready for that much power in such little time
Huff is very good, but he doesn’t have history or evidence on his side when it comes to defending literal interpretations.
Millions of intellectual people have debated the truth of GOD... For two thousand years plus...... And they still do
Thank you for attending!
What then happens after the prayer in dream
So, what was the question?
And what was the answer again ?
The philosophical gymnastics that Christians go through in the age of science and enlightenment, to conclude that the only plausible explanation is the resurrection was real, because otherwise one of the main tenets of Christianity falls down, is extraordinary and entertaining. Well done Alex for bringing this out.
The Resurrection is the hypothesis that best explains the data. Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapiede came to that view, even though he didn't convert to Christianity.
@@QCMP Assuming the data is accurate in the first place and then trying to find the best explanation, is a serious mistake. But it is not an obvious mistake, that's why people don't seem to realize that they rely on the data being correct, which presupposes the events happened as described, which is a self-validation in the end.
ruclips.net/video/23UNLLbOS3w/видео.htmlsi=--3_SAMTE0eD4g9D
Craig presupposes god... thats the problem here. He's like If god exists then miracles are possible lol. So he's saying miracles not being true is wrong because god exists.!! .. Its a major flaw in his logic and is what stops him from seeing miracle claims like a normal person. Hes so biased it blinds him from true inquiry. He's basically got circular reasoning. Crazy that a man that smart cant see that in himself.
But it's not a presupposition. He's spent several decades defending - in great detail - the arguments and evidence for the existence of God. - RF Admin
As far from the EAST and from the West. Shared eyes
The point Craig made about 1st century Jews being confronted with something that their own worldview was against is very apt. There is lots of historical evidence of the Jews projecting a Messiah figure and when it doesnt work , they later go at it again. That didnt happen with the Apostles or those early believers who were vastly Jewish. At least in the first 50-100 years.
The devil is absolutely cunning. These are certainly the last days. MANY, MANY will be deceived. Stay cling to the True Vine.
Alex needs to speak with David Bentley Hart.
It's a loaded question to try people to say no. The honest question is: what is the evidence that anyone could rise from the dead. The answer is: none.
It was almost unheard of ,that ,a person would be taken away within hours of their death ,the norm was ,when a person was dead on a cross ,the body was left for many weeks , 1 as a deterrent to others , 2 till a relative decided to claim the body ,which again was unusual ,as Roman’s would see that person as a possible sympathiser to the criminal ! The owner of the crypt ,must have been a very wealthy person to own such a crypt ! And also be under the close examination of Rome ,for their act ,so many non traditional or normal acts took place ,
It was not an insignificant Jew who went in and asked Pilate for the body, and Pilate, who was more sympathetic than the Jewish Sanhedrin, gave it to him. And when Pilate gave it to him you better believe the soldiers turned it over to him - Joseph of Arimathea. If anyone went after him for this act it wasn't Pilate or Rome; it would've been the Jews.
@@Caleb-xf5yn this also would have been a little out of character for Pilate ,as he was known to be not a very nice person ,and eventually replaced because of his brutal attitudes
,which is really saying something ,in those days !
Is Alex, listening, learning, and thinking though he may disagree or is he compiling arguments and seeking to formulate miss leading miss phrased questions or attempting to formulate rebuttals. Or is he like Peterson originally seeking truth we shall see in time..
Question for Dr. Craig: You stated that an isolated resurrection is not compatible with the Jewish worldview at the time of Christ, however, I would push back a little here and ask…..how are we supposed to understand Matthew 27:63-64……?
(NIV) 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”
This verse I would argue makes it clear, that Christ’s adversaries, the Chief Priests and the Pharisees (v.62) who are also Jewish and share the same worldview as the disciples, are making Pilate aware that a isolated resurrection “claim” is a possibility and in response, Pilate orders guards to secure the tomb.
How would you respond to this???
First, as in Lazarus's case, it may be that the dead who rose in Matthew 27 were merely revivified rather than resurrected to immortality. This seems at least plausible.
Second, this pericope doesn't touch any of the facts used in Dr. Craig's case for the resurrection, which are largely agreed upon as historical facts within New Testament scholarship. Matthew attaches the event to the *crucifixion,* not the resurrection, and the crucifixion is one of the most historically well-attested facts about Jesus.
Third, it's possible that Matthew didn't mean for the pericope to be taken literally, but as apocalyptic imagery which was not uncommon in Jewish literature of the time.
Fourth, the claim was that the Jews did not in fact expect the resurrection of an isolated individual prior to the general resurrection of the dead. Note that the Pharisees themselves did not believe that Jesus would rise from the dead, requesting that Pilate place guards at the tomb to prevent anyone from *stealing the body*.
Dr. Craig gives further details on these issues here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/qualms-about-the-resurrection-of-jesus.
- RF Admin
I appreciate this prompt response!!! Thank you for clarifying this🙏
Well done for keeping a straight face Alex
Well of course, he isn't like you
Even if bones were found of Jesus it would make no difference. He could have come back spiritually as a person.
The Gospel of Peter says that Jesus went up to Heaven on the cross. Then he returned different which matches other gospels.
I love Alex...and maybe he was just playing softball as to not alienate Craig, because he could easily have eviscerated Craig on multiple points... Extraordinary claims should require LESS evidence...? I am gobsmacked...😮😮😮😵
Pop Craig ye know? For the Son only have 1"Am" FATHER the I AM GOD ALMIGHTY!