Craig is one of the best apologists I have heard for Christianity, and I suppose he convinces a lot of people, but only those who can't see the errors of his logic.
do you people realized that for almost 2000 years, nobody questioned jesus's existence but his divine power. the jews and the muslims have all been arguing against christians saying jesus is not the Son of God for centuries and centuries, but it wasnt till recently that people started doubting his existence even. come on people, you think all those ppl throughout the centuries were all a bunch of dumbass? if jesus wasnt real, then they wouldve found out over that long period of time.
@gjsterp so let me get this straight. you think all those people believed in jesus even though they knew they could be persecuted and killed by the romans who opposed them? thats like saying that everyone was a dumbass for believing that the romans existed. i know for a fact that if there was some fake guy named jesus, i wouldnt have risked my life to believe in him and preach his words and believe in him.
@gjsterp wow just wow... you are such an ignorant piece of shit... they believed so strongly that jesus was who he said he was that they gave their lives for it and now youre calling them a bunch of dumbasses?? so what exactly is worth dying for then?? like you said, your life is the most precious thing a person has. what are you gonna give up your life for? your friend? your wife? well shit youre gonna be dead and 6 feet under and nothing but worm food and theyll be alive and kicking.
@iamtheman584 You claim to be a Christian, and then call me a piece of shit?
Your hypocracy is showing.
Please give me a passage where Jesus asks for martyrs.
To save a wife, sibling, son or daughter or friend, would all be good reasons to risk ones life, but not for the belief of someone who has been dead for almost 2000 yrs or may not have existed.
I understand the peace of mind believing in an afterlife can bring people. I just don't see any evidence for an afterlife or god.
@gjsterp we have as much evidence about the afterlife as there is about extraterrestrial life. we've never seen a dead person walk up before in modern times or perform miracles like jesus did. yet some of the brightest scientists out there assume that aliens or another life form exist out there on another planet. based on what? based on " a hunch" that we cant be the only life in the universe? so why cant we believe that this life isnt the only thing in store for us?
@iamtheman584 Well, you have to look at the diversity of life on this planet and in the extremes that it survives, then think of all the possibilities for life in this vast universe. There is very little wasted space on this planet where life does not exist. Then look up at the stars an imagine all those planets with possible life.
The possibilities and probabilities are in life's favor. There is other life out there.
@iamtheman584 I grant you that there is a possibility of an afterlife, though I think it very slim, almost zero. I believe the idea for an afterlife came from man's imagination to quiet his fears in the face of death - nonexistence is hard to imagine. Punishment and reward were incorporated into this belief, as it reflected justice on earth, but to add this to the idea of an afterlife, only lessens this from a chance of happening.
@gjsterp CONT... youll have nothing left. so what why should you give up your life for anything? in my belieft, ill be in heaven and shit maybe ill be dead, but hey at least i can look down and see that i did some good. well you wont be cuz youll be dead and you wont know anything. you wont even know if you did any good.
@gjsterp So you are using Jesus' words (he didn't tell anyone to martyr themselves) to argue against the existence of Jesus? You may want to consider what did Jesus say to Peter concerning his death? Not to mention many of his other statements. You've lost this debate. Best to concede gracefully and rejoin on another topic. No credible scholar anywhere refutes the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. You might as well refute the existence of Alexander or Caesar Augustus.
Is there a video of the question and answer session? The answers to Ehrman's questions are ridiculously elementary. For instance concerning his question asking if the more embellished accounts are not historical. It's not that they are not historical, it is that relatively speaking they are less historically convincing compared to un-embellished accounts. They certainly are historical, especially in their core themes. The embellished details in the periphery are less historically effective.
@gjsterp You've been wildly misled. No credible historian doubts the existence of Jesus. His existence is attested to by a number of secular historical documents of the era including the Jewish historian Josephus.
@Blake1960 Josephus only refers to people who follow the teaching of a man named Jesus. He does not categorically state that Jesus existed. It is only that the Christians believed Jesus existed. There is a difference. If Josephus had stated 'I knew Jesus' that would be different.
@gjsterp You have been misled. From Josephus' book of Antiquities: "Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross... "
@PascalsWager5 That is false, per my answer above "Convention in a debate is for the affirmative party to go first. As Dr. Craig is almost always making the affirmative argument, in this case that there is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, he thus goes first."
@daleshankins Convention in a debate is for the affirmative party to go first. As Dr. Craig is almost always making the affirmative argument, in this case that there is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, he thus goes first.
Of course - all those who disagree with "religion" have to be "not real scholars" ;) I really did not expect something else from you and I am not disappointed.
@SPQRAquila He never said any such thing. He stated that the majority of scholars agree on the four facts, the burial, empty tomb, later appearances, and the birth of the Christian faith.
And I am also glad that you "won't waste any more time", because I really consider discussing with religious people a waste of time myself. Of course it is an amusing waste of time, but waste nonetheless. In my free time I rather like to read books about early christians, religion as a whole or about the bible. So actually I am "doing research" more than you think ;) It is a very interesting topic. Too bad it does not share the optimistic christian views and opinions. So, have a nice day.
@SPQRAquila Ok bro' believe what you want. You go against the hundreds of real historains & Biblical scholars who tear Ehrman apart & prove the fail. Common critiques: "It is an unfortunate thing when a scholar uses a technical discipline such as textual criticism to browbeat an unsuspecting public." "Ehrman is quick to make leaps of un-supported conclusions". He uses multiple testimonies which are used to SUPPORT events & then twists it to try to go against the events.
abandoned the most important part of Jesus' life - his devotion, as a pious Jew, to the hebrew Torah. That's why you are not obliged to circumcission, kosher food etc. Too sad that Jesus explicitly said that "all who will change even the smallest part of the Law will rot in hell" (or sth like that). Well, the Church changed a lot, a common people change a lot in their modern life and modern understanding of the Bible. So this is the second great thing where Jesus failed.
@SPQRAquila Now you are making stuff up. Jesus never said that. Paul explains what you are questioning quite rationally and reasonably. Jesus himself stated his purpose on earth.
@Blake1960 You fail to realize that the Gospels were written by unknown authors, who with the stroke of a pen could very easily have put words into Jesus' mouth.
The Gospels are the result of very imaginative minds that wrote down stories they had heard and added to them.
@gjsterp Well, you're doing a good job of creating myth. :) New Testament exegesis is a well-developed field. Your assertion that the gospels are the result of imagination is untenable given modern exegetical analysis of the texts. By your logic, nothing in history could be believable since myth-making has been around for a long time. That logic fails.
@Blake1960 I'm not creating any new myth. The Jesus myth was challenged by many in the very early part of Christianity, but those voices were silenced, many times with malice. Exile or worse.
You are obviously reading books that do not show the problems and contradictions of the Bible, otherwise you would admit there are problems. There are too many to debate here. READ !
If your logic can ignore these problems, your personal faith is safe.
@Blake1960 The logical problems of the Bible shattered any faith I had.
I didn't wake up one morning an atheist, and I had no bone to pick with any god. I was seeking a truth I could logically accept, and found atheism the most logical, after many years of studying religions.
Also, religion is just too scary to be tolerated. Read Torguemada by Sabatini or study the Crusades.
Because they were willing to die or what? It's not an argument. Great majority of those people did not see Jesus at all, only heard of him. And the stories they heard... were not necessarily true ;) I only say that first christians changed Jesus' teachings for their own purpose. They made hundreds intentional, or unintentional changes in the Bible. Even pagan critics were laughing at them saying that they were changing the NT as they like. Moreover - due to Paul's teachings they completely...
@SPQRAquila "Prof. Ben Witherington carefully examines Ehrman's arguments and concludes that he has failed to apply the requirements of historical criticism, causing Ehrman's modern biases to lead him astray in his search for biblical truth Amen to that truth!
Take care bro"...regardless of opinions & research angles...love & peace to you & yours.
@SPQRAquila Jesus taught that the sabath was made for man, not man for the sabath. Your understanding of scripture is woefully lacking. A few cherry picked versus does not a cogent argument make.
@Blake1960 I think it would better to understand that man created the Sabbasth (for man's use or man-made). I don't think it is a question of man being created for the Sabbath.
@99minerkc I think you mean "deluded". Why do you think that & why do you imagine Christians as "poor" as though to be pitied? Most of us are wonderfully productive, happy, people. We tend to live longer healthier lives too. Is it that we donate so much of our income to charities and seek to help those who are in need (see Katrina disaster, Haiti, the Indonesian sunami)? Or is it that we were responsible for establishing this nation? Why are we so "poor" (pitiful) in your eyes?
It is pretty amusing to see a christian's critic of someone else's "critical&deductive thinking". Especially thinking of a rationalist. What you do right now is like looking on Atlantic Ocean and calling it "a sandy desert". All neutral people are able to see that Ehrman smashed Craig. All who see it otherwise have to be blinded by their faith. And we know that sometimes faith blinds more than a real illness. About Nero & martyrs - I don't get it. You think that christianity have to be true...
@Blake1960 The debate was NOT about logic it was in regards to "historical evidence". Erhman made that VERY CLEAR by say Craig was interjecting "theology" which is not history.
@99minerkc The debate was not about logic. Check! What I am saying is that the logic (you might say "reasoning") employed by Craig soundly supported his views and refuted those of Earman. The debate was about whether there is any evidence supporting Jesus' resurrection. Of course there is. To pretend otherwise is foolish and dishonest. That is not to say the evidence proves the resurrection, just that evidence exists. You and I can each read it.
@Blake1960 "The debate was about whether there is any evidence supporting Jesus' resurrection." NO, the debate was about "historical evidence" there is a difference, but obviously you do not understand it. Logic/reasoning, and NON historical evidence can be debated OUTSIDE of debates based on historical evidence. Craig did not follow the debate format as he showed ZERO historical evidence. Logic and reasoning are NOT historical evidence-think about it.
@Blake1960 What evidence is there for Jesus' ressurection?
Someone says so?
And the witnesses? Who were they?
If you look at the gospels they are written a lot lot a novel with an omnipresent narrator. No where will you find 'Jesus said to me.' I am not debating whether Jesus existed, I am challenging the myth created after his death.
Oh, I forgot to add. Saying that Craig "won" this debate is like saying, while watching World Trade Center collapse - "yeah, we kicked terrorists' asses that day - 11/09 2001". Ehrman completely destroyed Craig. Just like common sense destroys religion.
@SPQRAquila It's a wonder we have ANY info as all were killed by evil Romans for having Xtian writings or even talking of Jesus! Sorry no I-phones back then. The Jews at that time were very famous for passing down history & parables accurately. Of science...again wrong. Yes we look for evidence of God as science is discovering the much to learn quantum world.
I love & respect you & your opinion, but not your motives. I won't waste any more time until you research & can deduce=something happened
And last, but not least - you are making the same amusing mistake that many religious people from the whole world did before you. You think that all which is currently mysterious is "divine" - is God. This is as silly as claiming that Sun is a God or a lightning is a god. No. Sun is sun, lightnings are lightnings. Now we know it, because science discovered it. But your faith in "quantum mechanics = god" is the same fallacious thing as "sun = god, because it is so mysterious to us".
@SPQRAquila Wow, you are good with words & bad with critical & deductive thinking. I see you NEVER saw the sites I provided before ranting on...I rest my case. How can you say Ehrman won, LOL-he brings the same as zeitgeist/Archayra TRIED to do! Leaps of BS. I know you LOVE to bash Xtians more than research, but you are way wrong on the core of faith being the 2nd coming of Christ. The core of faith is as Paul said, His Resurrection, etc which he said they have no doubt & willing to die for this
@GoodyBob Unlike your other greatly-prejudiced thinking, I don't believe in EVERY word of the Bible as there's some redneck/Roman Catholic stuff written by men/edited by Constantine & the gang. We also have over 50 sources OUTSIDE the Bible. Your time arguments don't hold either! Nero killed a huge population of Xtians for the Great Fire=ONLY 30 yrs after Jesus. Where did they all come from SO FAST & why all others died for beliefs? & don't write back with the spelling of Cristus argument.
@SPQRAquila You mischaracterize the beliefs of people of faith. It takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist. Something from nothing, life from non-life, both notions are entirely untenable in the world of true science today.
It doesn't take any faith at all to be an atheist. Atheism stands for a single proposition - a lack of belief in a supernatural deity.
It entails nothing else about a person's views on the beginning of the universe, on the role of science, their politics, moral theories etc.
It's an odd thing though. Religious people used to regard "faith" as a virtue. Now, they wish to run from it, attributing it instead to the beliefs that OTHERS hold. That alone says a lot.
@citizenghosttown Atheism refutes the existence of G-d. What you describe is known as "agnosticism". I don't know any fellow religious folks who run from "faith". Faith is central to our faith. It's comical how some atheists are so bewildering confident in their understanding of people of faith. In fact they have no clue. You should come to an adult Sunday school or two and learn. It will surprise you. Or check out reasonablefaith daht org, Dr. Craig's site. Good stuff.
Well, more precisely, atheism rejects claims regarding the existence (and/or non-existence) of gods, based on the fact that such claims so far have not been substantiated.
@Blake1960 I don't believe any scientist believes the universe came from nothing. It only came from something other than what it is now. We see it expanding and assume it came from a big bang, but that is an assumption from present data. We must assume that more data WILL be forthcoming., and answer more questions.
I doubt that a god will ever be found. There is no evidence of any presence other than the universe.
@Blake1960 It takes NO faith to be an atheist, because most atheists are open to future proof of a god. It's not so much that we don't believe in any gods, it's just that we see no evidence for any. There is a difference.
But, I can say this with certainty. Most religious dogma is superstitious nonsense.
@gjsterp You're wrong. Atheism refutes the existence of G-d. What you describe is known as "agnosticism". You may pretend to speak with certainty, but it is a lie. You have no means to be certain other than your faith in atheism. If you don't see evidence, you are not looking around. It's akin to walking around a sand dune in the Sahara desert & finding a massive complex structure formed from sand & thinking "that must have happened purely by chance." It's a really odd philosophy.
Those statements were great 2000 years ago, but today preaching about "virgin Mary", star leading three wise men, and flying on the clouds with sword in the hand... well... it's simply retarded. Moreover - the bible was so heavily altered by the next generations that you can't even trust that what you read today is the exact text written by the first christians ;) But I know that it also do not prevent you and you-alike from believing in its "divine" nature.
Jesus was not speaking about "Temple's destruction", but about his "second coming". But I understand why you don't want to accept this - it would ruin the very fundaments of your faith, so you have to remove it completely from your mind. You also fail to acknowledge the very fundamental thing - you CANNOT TRUST THE BIBLE. It was written decades after the events and by people who strongly believed that their version is "true". It also contains plenty of silly and ridiculous statements.
And about scientists - you are again wrong. GREAT MAJORITY of scientists are atheists or agnostics. About 97% of British scientists do not believe in god. Even in your America about 93% of scientists do not share your faith. I know that christians like to present "christian scientists" to "proove" that it's not a "dumb people's" superstition, but facts are facts.
No, you are again wrong. Jesus did not say when EXACTLY the "end of current times" will come, but explicitly said when we can expect it - new testament contain an answer - "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done". He did not say "I say you - it will happen on the 325th day after my death. No, he said "you will be alive and will see it on your own eyes". And that's the point where he, and his modern followers, FAILED.
@SPQRAquila Thanks bro', but wrong again. The Temple WAS destroyed before a generation passed, as well as 516 seeing HIM/His ghost shortly after the resurrection, etc. Google bibletime/theory/generationgodsbreath. Then google wordpress. /2007/08/14/jesus-predictions-did-come-true/. He also predicted Judas betrayal. Wrong on those scientist % too & means 0.
Am in hurry late to work, but also see Dr. Gisin's work in Geneva of string theory = protons are connected by invisible force & can "think"!
Yup, of course Temple's destruction was "predicted" in gospels by Jesus' divine power, and NOT because gospels were written AFTER the destructions of the Temple :D You yourself proove that you are not an objective researcher. You also FAIL to notice, that Jesus said that everything will be done "before this (his and his followers) generation will pass". So, according to Jesus, we are living in the "Kingdom of Heaven" where he and his 12 (or 11, because it seems that when Jesus was promising...
Meanwhile generations passed, people who (as Paul and Jesus said) were suppoused to see all those miraculous events died, and... well, the Church did not accept the fact, that Jesus FAILED and WAS WRONG. They simply changed their silly beliefs and that's why we still are haunted by groups of silly people preaching about "second coming". Phew, one could think that 2000 years of FAIL can teach something... No - religion is not for those, who think rationally.
@SPQRAquila LOL, amazingly wrong bro'! Everything Jesus had predicted came to be...from His own capture, death & even yes resurrection. He even said the EXACT time the temple would be destroyed by the Romans decades later & that not a stone would stand=research for a change.
Youtube "Resurrection Evidence: That Amazing Creed in 1 Corinthians 15", & Lee Strobel stuff. ETC = lots more!
Of the 2nd coming...it will be when the time is right as stated...time is nothing to God. Like you, I hate it too when all say the end is near...nobody knows the day as Jesus said, except God. And of science HA...It was a Catholic priest who discovered the Big Bang & another Chrisian late who named it.
Google & youtube "Famous Scientists Who Believed In God - And Their Thoughts"
I don't have time to list all 10,000 famous scientists =Xtians. Modern views? Quantum mechanics = God.
Yeah, sure. Miracles and "holy" texts were good 2000 years ago, in age of common stupidity. But today we have a modern world and blind faith in ridiculous statements is, what you would call - a "sin". And I usually do not discuss with religious fanatics - it is totally irrational and a waste of time. Not to mention that Jesus (and Paul, and others) really believed that after few years he will come back, flying on the cloud from the sky (LOL!) and everything will be as he said...
@pantherlake2002 The same pipe of truth that most all REAL scholars & critics have said about Ehrman = epic fail. Study the true history & archaeological evidence...not what others force you to believe brother.
@pantherlake2002 Bro', you can follow who & what you want to believe is truth. Please study OUTSIDE from what others have taught you for a change...then consider what is correct. Jesus' ability to overcome quantum physics w/miracles, know of future events alone, etc. should give you a clue. He said many times that He has the power to forgive sins & worthy of worship= only God can do that. He also said He's the Alpha & Omega= beginning & end & has been with/part of God/Allah since the beginning!
@GoodyBob bro, I will worship Allah alone, just like Jesus. Jesus, said like Moses, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." He never claimed he was God or people to worship him. Give a clear verse where Jesus said "I am God or worship me", again, I said clear. Please dont give me the argument of Jesus being too coward to do so like other christians have,
@GoodyBob I know it is hard to face the truth - that your most beloved faith is based on fiction. Fortunately - your silly beliefs won't change history and suddenly make all this christian religious nonsense true.
@SPQRAquila Wow dude, you are a legend in your own mind. How can you lazily & totally block all proven history & delude from deductive reasoning & block REAL scholars, historians & archaeology, etc. "Silly beliefs won't change history" you say...the rebel Jesus changed history & beliefs more than ANY, for the last 2,000 yrs before you were born. Please put down yer Zeitgeist book & study REAL history & archaeology, ETC. Google Sir William Ramsay famous archaeologist EX-atheist on Luke's accuracy
@SPQRAquila FYI, I've studied all sides, unbiased, in depth for many yrs. before knowing w/o a doubt Jesus was for real & divine . Also, just another of thousands of proofs of Biblical accuracy of events, they recently discovered The Pool of Siloam & hidden tunnel where the Gospels say Jesus healed the blind man...skeptics like yourself for centuries said it never even existed...it's there big as life. Luke is claimed to be the best historian ever, & on & on. Please study all & objectively. Bye.
It's XXI century, we (humans) are flying into space, we built ISS and LHC and there's still a debate whether some Jew 2000 years ago really rose from the grave or not. Come on, FFS!
@mollkatless Also weddings and troops camping out is something that happens everyday. We've all seen examples. Someone dying, coming back to life again then flying is not an everyday occurence as far as I know. If I told you that I saw a giant flying through the air and then it magically disappeared but no before shooting lava out of its eyes you wouldn't believe me or you would assume it was an hallucination.
The 'evidence' for the ressurection presented so far in this debate is utterly laughable. Does it not amount to stating that it must be true because the bible says it is true?
I didn't actually see Washington and his troops camped out at valley forge in the winter of 1777-78, yet there is enough historical evidence available for me to believe they did.
Incidentally, did you actually witness your parents get married? I mean the pictures and documents could all be forged, and unless you yourself actually witnessed it, your a total tool if you think it happened, right?
@mollkatless No I mean that I'd have to see an example of somone dying and coming back to life and then flying. I'm not saying that I'd actually have to go back in time and see the resurrection. It's guillable to think these sorts of miracles happen without having seen them happen first.
@TheRealBladeRunner - You believe things everyday that you don't see, correct? going back to your parents, do you see the thoughts in their heads? Yet, you believe the thoughts are there don't you? even if they are not spoken or identified? Your spouse or child tells you they love you, do you see that love?
If you are limiting your litmus test of must see to miracles, how do you explain the hundreds of non-beleivers that claim to have seen Jesus after the resurrection?
@TheRealBladeRunner - this is a silly conversation, all you are saying is you are willing to believe some things you can't see, but not willing to beleive others - hardly a profound intellectual position to take.
Is your second thought a statement or questions, sounds like a statement but ends with a question mark, the story was circulated at the time of the resurrection, naming names of witnesses, none of the witnesses denied the accounts - what evidence do you have to the contrary?
@fuhzer Hume remains unrefuted. Read the book "In defense of Hume". Tears down the recent arguments used by christian apologists that use bayes theorem to discredit Hume.
@superskepticman I'm a chistian and I believe its a possibility that miracles can occur. Also I don't believe that becuase I'm a Christian, but I am a chistian becuase I believe miracles are possible. Please tell me 1 good reason why they are not. Thanks in advance
@SuperSkepticman Its not a debate and you need to stop listening to bart hes feeding you garbage like I said you atheists and muslims always cite his work ..then fail.
@SuperSkepticman also if you dont believe me you can chek my playlist further down bart brings no new accusation against the new testament he just lies to make a nickel off of ignorants.
does WLC ever debate on non-christian soil Biola. Notre Dame, College of Holy Cross, etc. Craig is great of always putting the burden of proof on the other debater, meanwhile never giving a fact to prove his case. i dont blame dawkins for debating this guy, do you like arguing with a drunk same thing.
Craig brilliantly displays a fallacy of "poisoning the well". By implying his opponents' statement is "bold", he implies there must be something wrong with it. It's subtle, yet very typical of Craig's debating style.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Craig simply stated that the statement was bold and then showed why it was bold...because it was wrong. Dawkins actually makes the "poisoning of the well" arguments many times over every time he opens his mouth. One of Dawkins' chief arguments is that God is "too complicated," and therefore must not exist. This is also a poisoning of the well argument, since it automatically condemns any complicated or even mildly supernatural explanation.
"Craig simply stated that the statement was bold and then showed why it was bold...because it was wrong."
Actually, it's Craig who is in the wrong. Ehrman represents the majority view of modern historians, so there's nothing bold about his statements.
"One of Dawkins' chief arguments is that God is too complicated"
Where? Dawkins' main argument is that of atheists in general: there is no evidence for the existence of any gods, so there's no reason to believe in them.
Poor Craig. As far as he's concerned, anything he asserts to be true must be true lol
The Resurrection can only be the best explanation for the evidence he presents if it can be proven human beings are incapable of embellishment, exaggeration, and lying. It so happens I can prove they are quite capable and frequently exploit these negative attributes.
@TryTheRedPill Unsophisticated people also have trouble distinguishing between imagination and reality. A lot of the "cryptids" the guys on those cable shows try to find in less developed parts of the world come from the fact that the natives have visions of these mythical beasts during dreams, drug trips, shamanic trances and the like; they don't encounter them in reality while foraging in the wilderness. I suspect the appearances of Jesus after his death fall into a similar category.
Craig spends more time spinning the metalanguage gloss of theology than making sense out of what actually exits in the mss of Scripture, but then again, his interest is bias.
@freakclub99 Thats nothing but an ad hominem attack and doesn't deal with the topic at hand. Craig could be an ice cream truck drive and it wouldn't matter as long as he was educated on the subject. I don't need to be an accountant to know about accounting and you dont have to be a historian to know about history.
@TheMortalhuman Yeah! I don't see why people think this guy is special. He isn't. He's not interested in valid debate, he wants to score point and use propaganda. Most of his premises are wrong and would be thrown out in a court room or legitimate debate format. What would he then says if someone says that his personal experience with Krishna proves to him that Jesus never resurrected.
Why is Craig attributing the first books of the bible to the individuals for whom they are named (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) when any biblical scholar worth a salt will admit that all four books were written decades after the life of Jesus. They are not first person accounts of the supposed resurrection event.
@Hornadayfan I have to disagree with you on that point, Just because it was written decades after his death doesn't mean it wasn't by first person account (Assuming you know what that means. In fact you have no evidence that they didn't have rough copies or notes of what they had witnessed. The apostles were busy preaching the gospel before writing the documents.
@Onetruthrgv First person account means that the person who wrote of an event was an eyewitness to said event. Rough copies or notes? That's a new one. Do you have any evidence that they had them?
@Hornadayfan Yes it is possible, whether I have evidence or not is irrelevant to its possibility. So it is possible that the apostles had notes or rough copies of what they learned from Jesus. If you say it is not possible then I'm gonna need to see some evidence that it isn't possible. The fact that they were writing decades later poses no problem since the apostles were busy traveling to preach the gospel and then wrote the documents by hand. Back then these things took a while
@Onetruthrgv The apostles were illiterate, as was almost all of humanity at that point in history. Only wealthy people such as Paul were able to afford the education to learn to read and write. They were not making any kind of notes.
@Onetruthrgv Read the evidence that Bart Ehrman provides in "Misquoting Jesus". Also have a look at literacy rates throughout history. The other evidence of course is that we have no "notes" from any of the apostles. In fact we have no writing from them at all, no original scripts, and not even any evidence that they existed either. The gospels were not titled "Matthew, Mark, Luke, John". They were untitled. The titles were added much later.
@TheMortalhuman Sorry buddy that's a logical fallacy called arguing from silence. Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Trust me Bart would not last 10 minutes against a philosopher.
@Onetruthrgv Nothing can be said to exist unless there is evidence that it exists. There is no evidence of any "notes" so You can't claim they exist. Yes you can claim that it is possible notes were written, or that the disciples were penguins, but both claims are highly improbable because of the extremely high probability that the disciples human and illiterate. I suspect you have not read "Misquoting Jesus". Am I right?
@Onetruthrgv What is extremely likely is that, as Ehrman descibes, stories began circulating about Jesus. Stories that were shared orally from believer to convert. Stories that were told and retold, augmented and embellished in an unrestricted and uncontrolled way until literate believers began writing the stories down some 35 years after Jesus was claimed to have been crucified. Its such a shame that God did not ensure that his word was properly recorded.
@Onetruthrgv There are events recorded in the gospels which the apostles could not possibly have witnessed or even known, such as the earnest prayers of Jesus in the garden of gethsemane. All the apostles were recorded as being asleep. Immediately after Jesus was arrested. How were they to know what he prayed, or the bloody sweat?
@Hornadayfan did you really say that? bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha chu funny mon! Okay, that was mean and since I'm not inclined to take it back, I'll simply offer a brief corrective on ancient Greek: Apologia is a "defense of", hence, apologetics is the defense of, or well reasoned logical summary of reasons and proofs for holding to the knowledge in and reliability of facts.
Here is William Lane Craig's admission: "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa". [Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 36.]
I have a better explanation for his facts. Aliens teleported jesus aboard their ship in which they revived him and teleported him back to earth. Actually more likely then he was resurrected by god.
@globalfraud Falsely assuming the improbability of supernatural explanations without factoring in the all the corroborating evidence, including background information and thus denying the possibility of science to discover anything since you are already prejudiced against one explanation even if all the others are discounted,is called the "Hume fallacy".
You have just proved you didnt listen to the debate, this fallacy was torn apart in the 18th-century
@relarerfhjk in order to demonstrate that the resurrection by god is the best explanation you must first establish that their is a god and yes i realize i have to demonstrate that aliens with that technology exists but that was an example. The point is a natural explanation is always more likely then a supernatural explanation(even craig admits this in his debate with stenger) and honestly id say that aliens with advanced technology is more likely then a god.
@globalfraud No you dont first have to demonstrate that God exists,only that its possible He eixsts otherwise you prejudice the results; you have to consider the evidence for the event itself,the nature of the event,the probability of naturalistic explanations AND background information e.g the fact that the events were not just random happenings but carried out by someone claiming to be a Son of God, those who witnessed them believed them to be the work of God, and they inspired a new religion.
@relarerfhjk first of all Dr. Craig is wrong the gospels are hardly independent the Matt and Luke are almost copies of Mark and John I suppose could be considered independent but we can dismiss the gospels as circular reasoning(using the bible to prove the bible) after that we are left with very few sources besides Josephus which is a forgery but no you have to demonstrate that god exists otherwise you're making a presupposition and eliminating all possible naturalistic explanations.
The 4 "facts" are merely fictional parts of the fictional story Mark created and the others embellished. It's like saying that Tom Sawyer actually existed because of the "facts" we can glean from the novel by Samuel Clemens. All the "facts" he puts forth come from one man's fictional tale about a cosmic savior come down to Earth in order to spank the Jews for rejecting the newfound belief system centered around a son of god who was brutally killed to satisfy the bloodlust of Yahweh.
@TruthSurge Thats not true,the four facts emerge from both Paul's 1st Corinthians and Mark, and quote very early source material; the accounts couldnt possibly be "fictional" because both Paul and Mark name their sources for these stories (the disciples and others) and those people would have contradicted them if they were lying. Mark describes events, such as the ressurection that happened just 30 years earlier and would have been known to be false in the local area if they were false
@relarerfhjk LOL! boy, are you totally clueless. Hey, I was too about 15 years ago. I don't have time to show you the decades of info I've learned or I would but consider the contradictions JUST between the 4 gospels - especially the post-ress accts. Go read them in parallel and log each difference. Then ask yourself, for example, how Matthew could mention an earthquake while the other 3 make no mention of it at all. Why does the original Mark stop at 16:8 and has no post ress acct?
@TruthSurge I have studied all the contradictions and theyPROVE the validity of the gospel accounts.You know why? Because they demonstrate the gospels were not collaborated upon, but are drawn from indepndent traditions (and therefore you would expect discrepancies) and yet they agree on ALL the fundamental facts, the empty tomb, the crucifixion, the post-mortem appearances the early belief of the disciples in His ressurection etc etc the parallel between the accounts confirms their validity
@relarerfhjk When almost every detail of an account differs and contradicts across 4 witnesses, how on earth could you think that the account as a whole was true or that any one of the witnesses was giving you anything reliable? Have you not even read the post-ress accts in parallel? Are you also not aware that those accts were never part of the original gospel of Mark? They were invented when the readers found Mark's original ending (16:8) unacceptable. Hence the mult endings in Mark alon
@relarerfhjk psssst I'll clue you in. Mark's gospel was fiction. complete fiction except for the locales and the rulers and the Jesus figure from the contemporary Christian beliefs (non-orthodox). Gnostic. Mythic. Mark invented the human Jesus. Matthew and Luke embellished Mark's fiction. All this was AFTER most of the epistles were penned. do yourself a favor. Read Bart Ehrman. read some critical scholars.
@TruthSurge Psst, I'll clue you in. your repeating a discredited old conspiracy theory which no reputable historian now supports. Bart Ehrman does not believe Jesus was an invention, and the most prominent atheist New Testament critic Gerd Ludeman (who does not believe in the ressurection) now says "It may be considered historically certain that Jesus's disciples, including Peter and other locals, had eperiences in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" The facts are not in dispute
@relarerfhjk Bart Ehrman is not a Jesus Mythicist. I am, however. But other than that, I agree with most of what Ehrman states and what he shows in his books (the ones for laymen like you and I?) is far and away enough to discredit any reliability the Bible has ref reality of the miraculous and spiritual.
And quoting scholars as a means of argument is absolutely ridiculous. You seem like that type already. Quick to wave your buddy names but empty on argumentation.
@relarerfhjk If I've heard "no reputable scholar" once, I've heard that phrase 1,000 times. You have been misled. Majority doesn't always mean correct. The gospels are fictional. Mark is fictional. There never was a Jesus. All of the events in the gospels come from OT passages jerked out of context why? Because... wait for it... there never WAS a Jesus to report on! They had to make it up and from where? why, the very writings that were in their laps.
if evolution is true which it is,dat means no first man or woman,implies no adam and eve ever existed,means no original sin,means no fall of man,means humans not born in a state of sin means they dont require a redeemer to take away this fictional sin,evolution is good enough to disprove all abrahamic death cults and not only dat d exodus has also been proven to be hoaxodus by israeli archaeologists,its safe to dump christianity in d graveyard we call mythology dats whr it belongs
Every Gospel was written long after Jesus ascended. By that time, the legend of Jesus grew considerably. I mean, biases, fallacies, and other factors influenced the authors of the Gospels, whoever they were. Just look at the difference of the person of Jesus between Mark's and John's Gospel. The difference is incredible. It's not how apologists like to say that each author wrote from a different point of view, it's proof of the evolving legend of Jesus. The irreconcilable contradictions are many
@tadpoleposition Actually most scholars agree that the earliest writings in the N.T. that speak on Jesus' resurrection were written within the first few decades that Jesus is said to have lived. Eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would undoubtedly still have been living to verify or falsify the claims. By your line of logic we must basically throw away every piece of ancient history becuase most of our records in other instances were written much longer after the events happened.
@seanstrnad "Eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would undoubtedly still have been living to verify or falsify the claims..."
Can you provide a first hand account of a single eyewitness? Also, it's not only the span of time between an event and it being recorded, it's the other factors I mentioned as well.
@tadpoleposition The Apostle Paul himself says to have corraborated his facts with Jesus followers, who were allegedly eyewitnesses to the events themselves. Paul cites a Creed that appears to have been passed around in the first Church established in Jerusalem only a few years after Jesus' death, which makes clear reference to a high Christology of Jesus which you claim only originated after many years of evolving legend. Even if the writers were not themselves eyewitnesses,
@tadpoleposition but contemparies of eyewitnesses, this would still indicate two things: 1) They viewed Jesus as the resurrected son of God from extremely early on, not decades or centuries later when you suggest only then did Jesus take a higher form of diety. 2) Also, contemparies of the eyewitnesses themselves would still have to deal directly with those who were alive to counter their claims, which is what the writers explicitly do by citing the persons Jesus allegedly appeared to.
Trying to debate the existence of Jesus is one thing, but his resurrection is quite another matter.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
Craig is one of the best apologists I have heard for Christianity, and I suppose he convinces a lot of people, but only those who can't see the errors of his logic.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
do you people realized that for almost 2000 years, nobody questioned jesus's existence but his divine power. the jews and the muslims have all been arguing against christians saying jesus is not the Son of God for centuries and centuries, but it wasnt till recently that people started doubting his existence even. come on people, you think all those ppl throughout the centuries were all a bunch of dumbass? if jesus wasnt real, then they wouldve found out over that long period of time.
iamtheman584 2 weeks ago
@iamtheman584 You wrote 'you think all those ppl throughout the centuries were all a bunch of dumbass?'
You only need to look around at all the dumb asses that remain with us.
Unfortunately they haven't gone away.
Read Torquemada by Rafael Sabatini, to see just how dumb we can be.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
@gjsterp so let me get this straight. you think all those people believed in jesus even though they knew they could be persecuted and killed by the romans who opposed them? thats like saying that everyone was a dumbass for believing that the romans existed. i know for a fact that if there was some fake guy named jesus, i wouldnt have risked my life to believe in him and preach his words and believe in him.
iamtheman584 2 weeks ago
@iamtheman584 Why did early Christians martyr themselves? For one thing, they were ignorant.
They thought they had a reason to give up their most precious thing - their life. Jesus never asked for martyrs.
That idea came later promoted by early church leaders. People imitated their leader's (Jesus) death. see the Crusades.
Those who died for their belief in religion were dumb asses.
There are things worth dying for, but belief in a savior in the sky is not one of them.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
@gjsterp wow just wow... you are such an ignorant piece of shit... they believed so strongly that jesus was who he said he was that they gave their lives for it and now youre calling them a bunch of dumbasses?? so what exactly is worth dying for then?? like you said, your life is the most precious thing a person has. what are you gonna give up your life for? your friend? your wife? well shit youre gonna be dead and 6 feet under and nothing but worm food and theyll be alive and kicking.
iamtheman584 2 weeks ago
@iamtheman584 You claim to be a Christian, and then call me a piece of shit?
Your hypocracy is showing.
Please give me a passage where Jesus asks for martyrs.
To save a wife, sibling, son or daughter or friend, would all be good reasons to risk ones life, but not for the belief of someone who has been dead for almost 2000 yrs or may not have existed.
I understand the peace of mind believing in an afterlife can bring people. I just don't see any evidence for an afterlife or god.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
@gjsterp we have as much evidence about the afterlife as there is about extraterrestrial life. we've never seen a dead person walk up before in modern times or perform miracles like jesus did. yet some of the brightest scientists out there assume that aliens or another life form exist out there on another planet. based on what? based on " a hunch" that we cant be the only life in the universe? so why cant we believe that this life isnt the only thing in store for us?
iamtheman584 2 weeks ago
@iamtheman584 Well, you have to look at the diversity of life on this planet and in the extremes that it survives, then think of all the possibilities for life in this vast universe. There is very little wasted space on this planet where life does not exist. Then look up at the stars an imagine all those planets with possible life.
The possibilities and probabilities are in life's favor. There is other life out there.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
@iamtheman584 I grant you that there is a possibility of an afterlife, though I think it very slim, almost zero. I believe the idea for an afterlife came from man's imagination to quiet his fears in the face of death - nonexistence is hard to imagine. Punishment and reward were incorporated into this belief, as it reflected justice on earth, but to add this to the idea of an afterlife, only lessens this from a chance of happening.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
@gjsterp CONT... youll have nothing left. so what why should you give up your life for anything? in my belieft, ill be in heaven and shit maybe ill be dead, but hey at least i can look down and see that i did some good. well you wont be cuz youll be dead and you wont know anything. you wont even know if you did any good.
iamtheman584 2 weeks ago
@gjsterp So you are using Jesus' words (he didn't tell anyone to martyr themselves) to argue against the existence of Jesus? You may want to consider what did Jesus say to Peter concerning his death? Not to mention many of his other statements. You've lost this debate. Best to concede gracefully and rejoin on another topic. No credible scholar anywhere refutes the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. You might as well refute the existence of Alexander or Caesar Augustus.
Blake1960 1 week ago
Is there a video of the question and answer session? The answers to Ehrman's questions are ridiculously elementary. For instance concerning his question asking if the more embellished accounts are not historical. It's not that they are not historical, it is that relatively speaking they are less historically convincing compared to un-embellished accounts. They certainly are historical, especially in their core themes. The embellished details in the periphery are less historically effective.
Blake1960 2 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman
The well known fact is that Jesus MIGHT have existed.
What does that say about the miracles?
Might have happened?
NOT LIKELY !
gjsterp 3 weeks ago
@gjsterp You've been wildly misled. No credible historian doubts the existence of Jesus. His existence is attested to by a number of secular historical documents of the era including the Jewish historian Josephus.
Blake1960 2 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman
@Blake1960 Josephus only refers to people who follow the teaching of a man named Jesus. He does not categorically state that Jesus existed. It is only that the Christians believed Jesus existed. There is a difference. If Josephus had stated 'I knew Jesus' that would be different.
Undoubtedly there were men named Jesus.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
@gjsterp You have been misled. From Josephus' book of Antiquities: "Now there arose at this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate, acting on information supplied by the chief men around us, condemned him to the cross... "
Blake1960 1 week ago
Why does Dr. Craig always go first in debates? Are there any debates where he goes second?
daleshankins 1 month ago
@daleshankins It's a condition that he demands
PascalsWager5 1 month ago in playlist Craig-Ehrman Debate
This has been flagged as spam show
@PascalsWager5 That is false, per my answer above "Convention in a debate is for the affirmative party to go first. As Dr. Craig is almost always making the affirmative argument, in this case that there is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, he thus goes first."
Blake1960 1 week ago
@daleshankins Convention in a debate is for the affirmative party to go first. As Dr. Craig is almost always making the affirmative argument, in this case that there is historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, he thus goes first.
Blake1960 2 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman
denying the resurrection as a bold claim?!?!....
what is a bold claim is the resurrection...and personal feelings don't count as evidence.
sorry...
littlebini 1 month ago
Of course - all those who disagree with "religion" have to be "not real scholars" ;) I really did not expect something else from you and I am not disappointed.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila He never said any such thing. He stated that the majority of scholars agree on the four facts, the burial, empty tomb, later appearances, and the birth of the Christian faith.
Blake1960 2 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman
And I am also glad that you "won't waste any more time", because I really consider discussing with religious people a waste of time myself. Of course it is an amusing waste of time, but waste nonetheless. In my free time I rather like to read books about early christians, religion as a whole or about the bible. So actually I am "doing research" more than you think ;) It is a very interesting topic. Too bad it does not share the optimistic christian views and opinions. So, have a nice day.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila Ok bro' believe what you want. You go against the hundreds of real historains & Biblical scholars who tear Ehrman apart & prove the fail. Common critiques: "It is an unfortunate thing when a scholar uses a technical discipline such as textual criticism to browbeat an unsuspecting public." "Ehrman is quick to make leaps of un-supported conclusions". He uses multiple testimonies which are used to SUPPORT events & then twists it to try to go against the events.
GoodyBob 2 months ago
abandoned the most important part of Jesus' life - his devotion, as a pious Jew, to the hebrew Torah. That's why you are not obliged to circumcission, kosher food etc. Too sad that Jesus explicitly said that "all who will change even the smallest part of the Law will rot in hell" (or sth like that). Well, the Church changed a lot, a common people change a lot in their modern life and modern understanding of the Bible. So this is the second great thing where Jesus failed.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila Now you are making stuff up. Jesus never said that. Paul explains what you are questioning quite rationally and reasonably. Jesus himself stated his purpose on earth.
Blake1960 2 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman
@Blake1960 You fail to realize that the Gospels were written by unknown authors, who with the stroke of a pen could very easily have put words into Jesus' mouth.
The Gospels are the result of very imaginative minds that wrote down stories they had heard and added to them.
Men had been creating myths for a very long time.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
@gjsterp Well, you're doing a good job of creating myth. :) New Testament exegesis is a well-developed field. Your assertion that the gospels are the result of imagination is untenable given modern exegetical analysis of the texts. By your logic, nothing in history could be believable since myth-making has been around for a long time. That logic fails.
Blake1960 1 week ago
@Blake1960 I'm not creating any new myth. The Jesus myth was challenged by many in the very early part of Christianity, but those voices were silenced, many times with malice. Exile or worse.
You are obviously reading books that do not show the problems and contradictions of the Bible, otherwise you would admit there are problems. There are too many to debate here. READ !
If your logic can ignore these problems, your personal faith is safe.
gjsterp 1 week ago
@Blake1960 The logical problems of the Bible shattered any faith I had.
I didn't wake up one morning an atheist, and I had no bone to pick with any god. I was seeking a truth I could logically accept, and found atheism the most logical, after many years of studying religions.
Also, religion is just too scary to be tolerated. Read Torguemada by Sabatini or study the Crusades.
gjsterp 1 week ago
Because they were willing to die or what? It's not an argument. Great majority of those people did not see Jesus at all, only heard of him. And the stories they heard... were not necessarily true ;) I only say that first christians changed Jesus' teachings for their own purpose. They made hundreds intentional, or unintentional changes in the Bible. Even pagan critics were laughing at them saying that they were changing the NT as they like. Moreover - due to Paul's teachings they completely...
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila "Prof. Ben Witherington carefully examines Ehrman's arguments and concludes that he has failed to apply the requirements of historical criticism, causing Ehrman's modern biases to lead him astray in his search for biblical truth Amen to that truth!
Take care bro"...regardless of opinions & research angles...love & peace to you & yours.
GoodyBob 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila Jesus taught that the sabath was made for man, not man for the sabath. Your understanding of scripture is woefully lacking. A few cherry picked versus does not a cogent argument make.
Blake1960 2 weeks ago in playlist William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman
@Blake1960 I think it would better to understand that man created the Sabbasth (for man's use or man-made). I don't think it is a question of man being created for the Sabbath.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
@gjsterp What you think is not meaningful, except to you. I'll go with Jesus.
Blake1960 2 weeks ago
@Blake1960 Poor diluted sheep.
99minerkc 1 week ago
@99minerkc I think you mean "deluded". Why do you think that & why do you imagine Christians as "poor" as though to be pitied? Most of us are wonderfully productive, happy, people. We tend to live longer healthier lives too. Is it that we donate so much of our income to charities and seek to help those who are in need (see Katrina disaster, Haiti, the Indonesian sunami)? Or is it that we were responsible for establishing this nation? Why are we so "poor" (pitiful) in your eyes?
Blake1960 1 week ago
It is pretty amusing to see a christian's critic of someone else's "critical&deductive thinking". Especially thinking of a rationalist. What you do right now is like looking on Atlantic Ocean and calling it "a sandy desert". All neutral people are able to see that Ehrman smashed Craig. All who see it otherwise have to be blinded by their faith. And we know that sometimes faith blinds more than a real illness. About Nero & martyrs - I don't get it. You think that christianity have to be true...
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila Based upon purely logical reasoning and history, Craig indeed did indeed make his argument. Ehrman did not.
Blake1960 2 weeks ago
@Blake1960 The debate was NOT about logic it was in regards to "historical evidence". Erhman made that VERY CLEAR by say Craig was interjecting "theology" which is not history.
99minerkc 1 week ago
@99minerkc The debate was not about logic. Check! What I am saying is that the logic (you might say "reasoning") employed by Craig soundly supported his views and refuted those of Earman. The debate was about whether there is any evidence supporting Jesus' resurrection. Of course there is. To pretend otherwise is foolish and dishonest. That is not to say the evidence proves the resurrection, just that evidence exists. You and I can each read it.
Blake1960 1 week ago
@Blake1960 "The debate was about whether there is any evidence supporting Jesus' resurrection." NO, the debate was about "historical evidence" there is a difference, but obviously you do not understand it. Logic/reasoning, and NON historical evidence can be debated OUTSIDE of debates based on historical evidence. Craig did not follow the debate format as he showed ZERO historical evidence. Logic and reasoning are NOT historical evidence-think about it.
99minerkc 1 week ago
@Blake1960 What evidence is there for Jesus' ressurection?
Someone says so?
And the witnesses? Who were they?
If you look at the gospels they are written a lot lot a novel with an omnipresent narrator. No where will you find 'Jesus said to me.' I am not debating whether Jesus existed, I am challenging the myth created after his death.
gjsterp 1 week ago
Oh, I forgot to add. Saying that Craig "won" this debate is like saying, while watching World Trade Center collapse - "yeah, we kicked terrorists' asses that day - 11/09 2001". Ehrman completely destroyed Craig. Just like common sense destroys religion.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila It's a wonder we have ANY info as all were killed by evil Romans for having Xtian writings or even talking of Jesus! Sorry no I-phones back then. The Jews at that time were very famous for passing down history & parables accurately. Of science...again wrong. Yes we look for evidence of God as science is discovering the much to learn quantum world.
I love & respect you & your opinion, but not your motives. I won't waste any more time until you research & can deduce=something happened
GoodyBob 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila Merely concocting an analogy is easy. Demonstrating that it is valid is quite another. Yours is entirely invalid.
Blake1960 2 weeks ago
And last, but not least - you are making the same amusing mistake that many religious people from the whole world did before you. You think that all which is currently mysterious is "divine" - is God. This is as silly as claiming that Sun is a God or a lightning is a god. No. Sun is sun, lightnings are lightnings. Now we know it, because science discovered it. But your faith in "quantum mechanics = god" is the same fallacious thing as "sun = god, because it is so mysterious to us".
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila Wow, you are good with words & bad with critical & deductive thinking. I see you NEVER saw the sites I provided before ranting on...I rest my case. How can you say Ehrman won, LOL-he brings the same as zeitgeist/Archayra TRIED to do! Leaps of BS. I know you LOVE to bash Xtians more than research, but you are way wrong on the core of faith being the 2nd coming of Christ. The core of faith is as Paul said, His Resurrection, etc which he said they have no doubt & willing to die for this
GoodyBob 2 months ago
@GoodyBob Unlike your other greatly-prejudiced thinking, I don't believe in EVERY word of the Bible as there's some redneck/Roman Catholic stuff written by men/edited by Constantine & the gang. We also have over 50 sources OUTSIDE the Bible. Your time arguments don't hold either! Nero killed a huge population of Xtians for the Great Fire=ONLY 30 yrs after Jesus. Where did they all come from SO FAST & why all others died for beliefs? & don't write back with the spelling of Cristus argument.
GoodyBob 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila You mischaracterize the beliefs of people of faith. It takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist. Something from nothing, life from non-life, both notions are entirely untenable in the world of true science today.
Blake1960 2 weeks ago
@Blake1960
It doesn't take any faith at all to be an atheist. Atheism stands for a single proposition - a lack of belief in a supernatural deity.
It entails nothing else about a person's views on the beginning of the universe, on the role of science, their politics, moral theories etc.
It's an odd thing though. Religious people used to regard "faith" as a virtue. Now, they wish to run from it, attributing it instead to the beliefs that OTHERS hold. That alone says a lot.
citizenghosttown 2 weeks ago
@citizenghosttown Atheism refutes the existence of G-d. What you describe is known as "agnosticism". I don't know any fellow religious folks who run from "faith". Faith is central to our faith. It's comical how some atheists are so bewildering confident in their understanding of people of faith. In fact they have no clue. You should come to an adult Sunday school or two and learn. It will surprise you. Or check out reasonablefaith daht org, Dr. Craig's site. Good stuff.
Blake1960 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blake1960
« Atheism refutes the existence of G-d »
Well, more precisely, atheism rejects claims regarding the existence (and/or non-existence) of gods, based on the fact that such claims so far have not been substantiated.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blake1960
« What you describe is known as "agnosticism" »
All agnostics are atheists; most atheists are agnostics.
You've got yer:
- Gnostic atheists: who claim to know with absolute certainty no gods exist,
- Agnostic atheists: who reject claims re the existence of gods, but don't claim the opposite to be the only possibility,
- Agnostic theists: who believe a god exists, but don't claim to be absolutely certain and
- Gnostic theists: who claim to be absolutely certain a god exists.
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blake1960
« Faith is central to our faith »
... Owwkay...
XGralgrathor 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Blake1960
« reasonablefaith daht org, Dr. Craig's site. Good stuff »
[SPLURT] Goddamn, coffee all over my keyboard. Don't make jokes like that!
MrGralgrathor 1 week ago
@Blake1960 I don't believe any scientist believes the universe came from nothing. It only came from something other than what it is now. We see it expanding and assume it came from a big bang, but that is an assumption from present data. We must assume that more data WILL be forthcoming., and answer more questions.
I doubt that a god will ever be found. There is no evidence of any presence other than the universe.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
@Blake1960 It takes NO faith to be an atheist, because most atheists are open to future proof of a god. It's not so much that we don't believe in any gods, it's just that we see no evidence for any. There is a difference.
But, I can say this with certainty. Most religious dogma is superstitious nonsense.
gjsterp 2 weeks ago
@gjsterp You're wrong. Atheism refutes the existence of G-d. What you describe is known as "agnosticism". You may pretend to speak with certainty, but it is a lie. You have no means to be certain other than your faith in atheism. If you don't see evidence, you are not looking around. It's akin to walking around a sand dune in the Sahara desert & finding a massive complex structure formed from sand & thinking "that must have happened purely by chance." It's a really odd philosophy.
Blake1960 1 week ago
Those statements were great 2000 years ago, but today preaching about "virgin Mary", star leading three wise men, and flying on the clouds with sword in the hand... well... it's simply retarded. Moreover - the bible was so heavily altered by the next generations that you can't even trust that what you read today is the exact text written by the first christians ;) But I know that it also do not prevent you and you-alike from believing in its "divine" nature.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
Jesus was not speaking about "Temple's destruction", but about his "second coming". But I understand why you don't want to accept this - it would ruin the very fundaments of your faith, so you have to remove it completely from your mind. You also fail to acknowledge the very fundamental thing - you CANNOT TRUST THE BIBLE. It was written decades after the events and by people who strongly believed that their version is "true". It also contains plenty of silly and ridiculous statements.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
And about scientists - you are again wrong. GREAT MAJORITY of scientists are atheists or agnostics. About 97% of British scientists do not believe in god. Even in your America about 93% of scientists do not share your faith. I know that christians like to present "christian scientists" to "proove" that it's not a "dumb people's" superstition, but facts are facts.
Quantum mechanics = quantum mechanics. Not God.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
No, you are again wrong. Jesus did not say when EXACTLY the "end of current times" will come, but explicitly said when we can expect it - new testament contain an answer - "Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done". He did not say "I say you - it will happen on the 325th day after my death. No, he said "you will be alive and will see it on your own eyes". And that's the point where he, and his modern followers, FAILED.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila Thanks bro', but wrong again. The Temple WAS destroyed before a generation passed, as well as 516 seeing HIM/His ghost shortly after the resurrection, etc. Google bibletime/theory/generationgodsbreath. Then google wordpress. /2007/08/14/jesus-predictions-did-come-true/. He also predicted Judas betrayal. Wrong on those scientist % too & means 0.
Am in hurry late to work, but also see Dr. Gisin's work in Geneva of string theory = protons are connected by invisible force & can "think"!
GoodyBob 2 months ago
12 thrones we was not aware that one of him will be later called "a traitor" ;) ) is rulling for... at least 1900 years.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
Yup, of course Temple's destruction was "predicted" in gospels by Jesus' divine power, and NOT because gospels were written AFTER the destructions of the Temple :D You yourself proove that you are not an objective researcher. You also FAIL to notice, that Jesus said that everything will be done "before this (his and his followers) generation will pass". So, according to Jesus, we are living in the "Kingdom of Heaven" where he and his 12 (or 11, because it seems that when Jesus was promising...
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
Meanwhile generations passed, people who (as Paul and Jesus said) were suppoused to see all those miraculous events died, and... well, the Church did not accept the fact, that Jesus FAILED and WAS WRONG. They simply changed their silly beliefs and that's why we still are haunted by groups of silly people preaching about "second coming". Phew, one could think that 2000 years of FAIL can teach something... No - religion is not for those, who think rationally.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila LOL, amazingly wrong bro'! Everything Jesus had predicted came to be...from His own capture, death & even yes resurrection. He even said the EXACT time the temple would be destroyed by the Romans decades later & that not a stone would stand=research for a change.
Youtube "Resurrection Evidence: That Amazing Creed in 1 Corinthians 15", & Lee Strobel stuff. ETC = lots more!
GoodyBob 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila
Of the 2nd coming...it will be when the time is right as stated...time is nothing to God. Like you, I hate it too when all say the end is near...nobody knows the day as Jesus said, except God. And of science HA...It was a Catholic priest who discovered the Big Bang & another Chrisian late who named it.
Google & youtube "Famous Scientists Who Believed In God - And Their Thoughts"
I don't have time to list all 10,000 famous scientists =Xtians. Modern views? Quantum mechanics = God.
GoodyBob 2 months ago
Yeah, sure. Miracles and "holy" texts were good 2000 years ago, in age of common stupidity. But today we have a modern world and blind faith in ridiculous statements is, what you would call - a "sin". And I usually do not discuss with religious fanatics - it is totally irrational and a waste of time. Not to mention that Jesus (and Paul, and others) really believed that after few years he will come back, flying on the cloud from the sky (LOL!) and everything will be as he said...
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
The agnostic Ehrman had very little to support his twisting claims. Craig won big time!
GoodyBob 2 months ago
@GoodyBob lol, ok.what were you smoking in this debate bro?
pantherlake2002 2 months ago
@pantherlake2002 The same pipe of truth that most all REAL scholars & critics have said about Ehrman = epic fail. Study the true history & archaeological evidence...not what others force you to believe brother.
GoodyBob 2 months ago
@GoodyBob lol, like believing full man full God, trinity, God dieing, original sin, etc. no thanks,
pantherlake2002 2 months ago
@pantherlake2002 Bro', you can follow who & what you want to believe is truth. Please study OUTSIDE from what others have taught you for a change...then consider what is correct. Jesus' ability to overcome quantum physics w/miracles, know of future events alone, etc. should give you a clue. He said many times that He has the power to forgive sins & worthy of worship= only God can do that. He also said He's the Alpha & Omega= beginning & end & has been with/part of God/Allah since the beginning!
GoodyBob 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoodyBob bro, I will worship Allah alone, just like Jesus. Jesus, said like Moses, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." He never claimed he was God or people to worship him. Give a clear verse where Jesus said "I am God or worship me", again, I said clear. Please dont give me the argument of Jesus being too coward to do so like other christians have,
pantherlake2002 2 months ago
@GoodyBob I know it is hard to face the truth - that your most beloved faith is based on fiction. Fortunately - your silly beliefs won't change history and suddenly make all this christian religious nonsense true.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila Wow dude, you are a legend in your own mind. How can you lazily & totally block all proven history & delude from deductive reasoning & block REAL scholars, historians & archaeology, etc. "Silly beliefs won't change history" you say...the rebel Jesus changed history & beliefs more than ANY, for the last 2,000 yrs before you were born. Please put down yer Zeitgeist book & study REAL history & archaeology, ETC. Google Sir William Ramsay famous archaeologist EX-atheist on Luke's accuracy
GoodyBob 2 months ago
@SPQRAquila FYI, I've studied all sides, unbiased, in depth for many yrs. before knowing w/o a doubt Jesus was for real & divine . Also, just another of thousands of proofs of Biblical accuracy of events, they recently discovered The Pool of Siloam & hidden tunnel where the Gospels say Jesus healed the blind man...skeptics like yourself for centuries said it never even existed...it's there big as life. Luke is claimed to be the best historian ever, & on & on. Please study all & objectively. Bye.
GoodyBob 2 months ago
It's XXI century, we (humans) are flying into space, we built ISS and LHC and there's still a debate whether some Jew 2000 years ago really rose from the grave or not. Come on, FFS!
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
@mollkatless Also weddings and troops camping out is something that happens everyday. We've all seen examples. Someone dying, coming back to life again then flying is not an everyday occurence as far as I know. If I told you that I saw a giant flying through the air and then it magically disappeared but no before shooting lava out of its eyes you wouldn't believe me or you would assume it was an hallucination.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 months ago
Craig's list of arguments:
* "Your argument is old, and people don't agree with you."
* "You are inept, your scholarship is inane, your reasoning is fallacious"
* "Historians have established (unestablished claim)"
* "(Unsound syllogism), (unsound syllogism), therefore Jesus"
daofeishi 2 months ago
The 'evidence' for the ressurection presented so far in this debate is utterly laughable. Does it not amount to stating that it must be true because the bible says it is true?
AllyWheels 3 months ago
Jesus died then came back to life, moved a two ton boulder out of the way and then flew to heaven. That's something I'd have to see to believe.
Why do Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus without this sort of evidence, actually seeing it happen?
TheRealBladeRunner 3 months ago
@TheRealBladeRunner He didnt move the boulder, genius.
camthejock 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheRealBladeRunner 2 months ago
@camthejock Also if Jesus walked through the boulder you've made me believe in the resurrection even less.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 months ago
@TheRealBladeRunner didnt do that either...lol
learn before you speak.
camthejock 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheRealBladeRunner 2 months ago
@camthejock Then how did Jesus get out? Careful I think I have you here...
TheRealBladeRunner 2 months ago
@TheRealBladeRunner no offense, but are you retarded?
I didn't actually see Washington and his troops camped out at valley forge in the winter of 1777-78, yet there is enough historical evidence available for me to believe they did.
Incidentally, did you actually witness your parents get married? I mean the pictures and documents could all be forged, and unless you yourself actually witnessed it, your a total tool if you think it happened, right?
mollkatless 2 months ago
@mollkatless No I mean that I'd have to see an example of somone dying and coming back to life and then flying. I'm not saying that I'd actually have to go back in time and see the resurrection. It's guillable to think these sorts of miracles happen without having seen them happen first.
And it's "you're" not "your"
TheRealBladeRunner 2 months ago
@TheRealBladeRunner - You believe things everyday that you don't see, correct? going back to your parents, do you see the thoughts in their heads? Yet, you believe the thoughts are there don't you? even if they are not spoken or identified? Your spouse or child tells you they love you, do you see that love?
If you are limiting your litmus test of must see to miracles, how do you explain the hundreds of non-beleivers that claim to have seen Jesus after the resurrection?
mollkatless 2 months ago
@mollkatless I assume others have thoughts because I do too.
The story in the bible that says hundreds of people saw Jesus post resurrection was made up?
Remember I still want you to show me an example of somone dying and coming back to life then flying.
TheRealBladeRunner 2 months ago
@TheRealBladeRunner - this is a silly conversation, all you are saying is you are willing to believe some things you can't see, but not willing to beleive others - hardly a profound intellectual position to take.
Is your second thought a statement or questions, sounds like a statement but ends with a question mark, the story was circulated at the time of the resurrection, naming names of witnesses, none of the witnesses denied the accounts - what evidence do you have to the contrary?
mollkatless 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheRealBladeRunner 3 months ago
@fuhzer Hume remains unrefuted. Read the book "In defense of Hume". Tears down the recent arguments used by christian apologists that use bayes theorem to discredit Hume.
Drgamedood 4 months ago
@superskepticman I'm a chistian and I believe its a possibility that miracles can occur. Also I don't believe that becuase I'm a Christian, but I am a chistian becuase I believe miracles are possible. Please tell me 1 good reason why they are not. Thanks in advance
jonathancooper1988 4 months ago
@jonathancooper1988 Read up on the burden of proof & get back to us.
Thanks in advance.
PascalsWager5 3 months ago
@SuperSkepticman websitetoolbox site
matrixlone 5 months ago
@SuperSkepticman Google who won dr craig's debate with ehrman it's another reason why you should'nt cite barts work.
matrixlone 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matrixlone "it's another reason why you should'nt cite barts work."
I ask you to walk into a university and say this. Really, I can tell you that if a professional ever reads you saying that, they'll pity you.
AR333 4 months ago
@SuperSkepticman Its not a debate and you need to stop listening to bart hes feeding you garbage like I said you atheists and muslims always cite his work ..then fail.
matrixlone 5 months ago
@matrixlone k
matrixlone 5 months ago
@SuperSkepticman How is he a fraud? he lies about the new testament you can also check my playlist further down.
matrixlone 5 months ago
@SuperSkepticman *Laughs* Your naturalistic bias is showing hey if you want to defend that clown bart be my guess no one is stopping you.
matrixlone 5 months ago
@SuperSkepticman also if you dont believe me you can chek my playlist further down bart brings no new accusation against the new testament he just lies to make a nickel off of ignorants.
matrixlone 5 months ago
@SuperSkepticman Nah craig won also bart is a fraud.
matrixlone 5 months ago
does WLC ever debate on non-christian soil Biola. Notre Dame, College of Holy Cross, etc. Craig is great of always putting the burden of proof on the other debater, meanwhile never giving a fact to prove his case. i dont blame dawkins for debating this guy, do you like arguing with a drunk same thing.
lordrazr 5 months ago
Craig won as usual.
matrixlone 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@matrixlone
"Craig won as usual."
Only to believers who swallow his tripe wholesale to start with.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
Teenage faith = faith by brainwashing by others or yourself (Usually goes over when exposed to other ideas)
Faith in Jesus = Personal experience of Jesus & the truth
I don't believe in so called "ex-Christians", it is like calling one self ex born human.
dannywizz 5 months ago
Craig brilliantly displays a fallacy of "poisoning the well". By implying his opponents' statement is "bold", he implies there must be something wrong with it. It's subtle, yet very typical of Craig's debating style.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Craig simply stated that the statement was bold and then showed why it was bold...because it was wrong. Dawkins actually makes the "poisoning of the well" arguments many times over every time he opens his mouth. One of Dawkins' chief arguments is that God is "too complicated," and therefore must not exist. This is also a poisoning of the well argument, since it automatically condemns any complicated or even mildly supernatural explanation.
macroburst1 5 months ago
@macroburst1
"Craig simply stated that the statement was bold and then showed why it was bold...because it was wrong."
Actually, it's Craig who is in the wrong. Ehrman represents the majority view of modern historians, so there's nothing bold about his statements.
"One of Dawkins' chief arguments is that God is too complicated"
Where? Dawkins' main argument is that of atheists in general: there is no evidence for the existence of any gods, so there's no reason to believe in them.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
Poor Craig. As far as he's concerned, anything he asserts to be true must be true lol
The Resurrection can only be the best explanation for the evidence he presents if it can be proven human beings are incapable of embellishment, exaggeration, and lying. It so happens I can prove they are quite capable and frequently exploit these negative attributes.
TryTheRedPill 5 months ago
@TryTheRedPill Unsophisticated people also have trouble distinguishing between imagination and reality. A lot of the "cryptids" the guys on those cable shows try to find in less developed parts of the world come from the fact that the natives have visions of these mythical beasts during dreams, drug trips, shamanic trances and the like; they don't encounter them in reality while foraging in the wilderness. I suspect the appearances of Jesus after his death fall into a similar category.
MrAdvancedAtheist 5 months ago
Craig spends more time spinning the metalanguage gloss of theology than making sense out of what actually exits in the mss of Scripture, but then again, his interest is bias.
theNCGstudios 5 months ago
Craig lost on the facts.
RaynorGo 6 months ago
@RaynorGo
"Craig lost on the facts."
He usually does.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
Bart Ehrman hit the bullseye when he said that "Craig is an imaginist trying to disguise himself as an historian."
freakclub99 7 months ago
@freakclub99 Thats nothing but an ad hominem attack and doesn't deal with the topic at hand. Craig could be an ice cream truck drive and it wouldn't matter as long as he was educated on the subject. I don't need to be an accountant to know about accounting and you dont have to be a historian to know about history.
AegeanKing 7 months ago
Did he just say that his personal experience is a valid proof for the resurrection? WTF
petion2010 7 months ago
@petion2010 I heard that too, He actually said that out loud so that other people could hear it.
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Yeah! I don't see why people think this guy is special. He isn't. He's not interested in valid debate, he wants to score point and use propaganda. Most of his premises are wrong and would be thrown out in a court room or legitimate debate format. What would he then says if someone says that his personal experience with Krishna proves to him that Jesus never resurrected.
petion2010 7 months ago
Why is Craig attributing the first books of the bible to the individuals for whom they are named (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) when any biblical scholar worth a salt will admit that all four books were written decades after the life of Jesus. They are not first person accounts of the supposed resurrection event.
Hornadayfan 8 months ago
@Hornadayfan I have to disagree with you on that point, Just because it was written decades after his death doesn't mean it wasn't by first person account (Assuming you know what that means. In fact you have no evidence that they didn't have rough copies or notes of what they had witnessed. The apostles were busy preaching the gospel before writing the documents.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv First person account means that the person who wrote of an event was an eyewitness to said event. Rough copies or notes? That's a new one. Do you have any evidence that they had them?
Hornadayfan 7 months ago
@Hornadayfan Yes it is possible, whether I have evidence or not is irrelevant to its possibility. So it is possible that the apostles had notes or rough copies of what they learned from Jesus. If you say it is not possible then I'm gonna need to see some evidence that it isn't possible. The fact that they were writing decades later poses no problem since the apostles were busy traveling to preach the gospel and then wrote the documents by hand. Back then these things took a while
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv The apostles were illiterate, as was almost all of humanity at that point in history. Only wealthy people such as Paul were able to afford the education to learn to read and write. They were not making any kind of notes.
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Any evidence or are you just arguing from tradition?
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Read the evidence that Bart Ehrman provides in "Misquoting Jesus". Also have a look at literacy rates throughout history. The other evidence of course is that we have no "notes" from any of the apostles. In fact we have no writing from them at all, no original scripts, and not even any evidence that they existed either. The gospels were not titled "Matthew, Mark, Luke, John". They were untitled. The titles were added much later.
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Sorry buddy that's a logical fallacy called arguing from silence. Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Trust me Bart would not last 10 minutes against a philosopher.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Nothing can be said to exist unless there is evidence that it exists. There is no evidence of any "notes" so You can't claim they exist. Yes you can claim that it is possible notes were written, or that the disciples were penguins, but both claims are highly improbable because of the extremely high probability that the disciples human and illiterate. I suspect you have not read "Misquoting Jesus". Am I right?
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv What is extremely likely is that, as Ehrman descibes, stories began circulating about Jesus. Stories that were shared orally from believer to convert. Stories that were told and retold, augmented and embellished in an unrestricted and uncontrolled way until literate believers began writing the stories down some 35 years after Jesus was claimed to have been crucified. Its such a shame that God did not ensure that his word was properly recorded.
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv And forgive me if I don't trust you with your opinion regarding the outcome of a non-existent debate.
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv There are events recorded in the gospels which the apostles could not possibly have witnessed or even known, such as the earnest prayers of Jesus in the garden of gethsemane. All the apostles were recorded as being asleep. Immediately after Jesus was arrested. How were they to know what he prayed, or the bloody sweat?
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
Everyone should understand that the root of apologetics is apologize. Therefore anyone who considers themselves an apologist is in advance
already apologizing for their lack of evidence for their beliefs..
Hornadayfan 8 months ago
@Hornadayfan did you really say that? bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha chu funny mon! Okay, that was mean and since I'm not inclined to take it back, I'll simply offer a brief corrective on ancient Greek: Apologia is a "defense of", hence, apologetics is the defense of, or well reasoned logical summary of reasons and proofs for holding to the knowledge in and reliability of facts.
Ptasoka 7 months ago
Here is William Lane Craig's admission: "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa". [Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, (Revised edition, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1994), p. 36.]
pboyfloyd 8 months ago
I have a better explanation for his facts. Aliens teleported jesus aboard their ship in which they revived him and teleported him back to earth. Actually more likely then he was resurrected by god.
globalfraud 8 months ago
@globalfraud Falsely assuming the improbability of supernatural explanations without factoring in the all the corroborating evidence, including background information and thus denying the possibility of science to discover anything since you are already prejudiced against one explanation even if all the others are discounted,is called the "Hume fallacy".
You have just proved you didnt listen to the debate, this fallacy was torn apart in the 18th-century
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk in order to demonstrate that the resurrection by god is the best explanation you must first establish that their is a god and yes i realize i have to demonstrate that aliens with that technology exists but that was an example. The point is a natural explanation is always more likely then a supernatural explanation(even craig admits this in his debate with stenger) and honestly id say that aliens with advanced technology is more likely then a god.
globalfraud 8 months ago
@globalfraud No you dont first have to demonstrate that God exists,only that its possible He eixsts otherwise you prejudice the results; you have to consider the evidence for the event itself,the nature of the event,the probability of naturalistic explanations AND background information e.g the fact that the events were not just random happenings but carried out by someone claiming to be a Son of God, those who witnessed them believed them to be the work of God, and they inspired a new religion.
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk first of all Dr. Craig is wrong the gospels are hardly independent the Matt and Luke are almost copies of Mark and John I suppose could be considered independent but we can dismiss the gospels as circular reasoning(using the bible to prove the bible) after that we are left with very few sources besides Josephus which is a forgery but no you have to demonstrate that god exists otherwise you're making a presupposition and eliminating all possible naturalistic explanations.
globalfraud 8 months ago
The 4 "facts" are merely fictional parts of the fictional story Mark created and the others embellished. It's like saying that Tom Sawyer actually existed because of the "facts" we can glean from the novel by Samuel Clemens. All the "facts" he puts forth come from one man's fictional tale about a cosmic savior come down to Earth in order to spank the Jews for rejecting the newfound belief system centered around a son of god who was brutally killed to satisfy the bloodlust of Yahweh.
TruthSurge 8 months ago
@TruthSurge Thats not true,the four facts emerge from both Paul's 1st Corinthians and Mark, and quote very early source material; the accounts couldnt possibly be "fictional" because both Paul and Mark name their sources for these stories (the disciples and others) and those people would have contradicted them if they were lying. Mark describes events, such as the ressurection that happened just 30 years earlier and would have been known to be false in the local area if they were false
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk LOL! boy, are you totally clueless. Hey, I was too about 15 years ago. I don't have time to show you the decades of info I've learned or I would but consider the contradictions JUST between the 4 gospels - especially the post-ress accts. Go read them in parallel and log each difference. Then ask yourself, for example, how Matthew could mention an earthquake while the other 3 make no mention of it at all. Why does the original Mark stop at 16:8 and has no post ress acct?
TruthSurge 8 months ago
@TruthSurge I have studied all the contradictions and theyPROVE the validity of the gospel accounts.You know why? Because they demonstrate the gospels were not collaborated upon, but are drawn from indepndent traditions (and therefore you would expect discrepancies) and yet they agree on ALL the fundamental facts, the empty tomb, the crucifixion, the post-mortem appearances the early belief of the disciples in His ressurection etc etc the parallel between the accounts confirms their validity
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk When almost every detail of an account differs and contradicts across 4 witnesses, how on earth could you think that the account as a whole was true or that any one of the witnesses was giving you anything reliable? Have you not even read the post-ress accts in parallel? Are you also not aware that those accts were never part of the original gospel of Mark? They were invented when the readers found Mark's original ending (16:8) unacceptable. Hence the mult endings in Mark alon
TruthSurge 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk just wow man. just wow. Good luck to you and your rose colored apologetics. (
TruthSurge 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk psssst I'll clue you in. Mark's gospel was fiction. complete fiction except for the locales and the rulers and the Jesus figure from the contemporary Christian beliefs (non-orthodox). Gnostic. Mythic. Mark invented the human Jesus. Matthew and Luke embellished Mark's fiction. All this was AFTER most of the epistles were penned. do yourself a favor. Read Bart Ehrman. read some critical scholars.
TruthSurge 8 months ago
@TruthSurge Psst, I'll clue you in. your repeating a discredited old conspiracy theory which no reputable historian now supports. Bart Ehrman does not believe Jesus was an invention, and the most prominent atheist New Testament critic Gerd Ludeman (who does not believe in the ressurection) now says "It may be considered historically certain that Jesus's disciples, including Peter and other locals, had eperiences in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ" The facts are not in dispute
relarerfhjk 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk Bart Ehrman is not a Jesus Mythicist. I am, however. But other than that, I agree with most of what Ehrman states and what he shows in his books (the ones for laymen like you and I?) is far and away enough to discredit any reliability the Bible has ref reality of the miraculous and spiritual.
And quoting scholars as a means of argument is absolutely ridiculous. You seem like that type already. Quick to wave your buddy names but empty on argumentation.
TruthSurge 8 months ago
@relarerfhjk If I've heard "no reputable scholar" once, I've heard that phrase 1,000 times. You have been misled. Majority doesn't always mean correct. The gospels are fictional. Mark is fictional. There never was a Jesus. All of the events in the gospels come from OT passages jerked out of context why? Because... wait for it... there never WAS a Jesus to report on! They had to make it up and from where? why, the very writings that were in their laps.
TruthSurge 8 months ago
Good debate
IndepndntThinker 8 months ago
if evolution is true which it is,dat means no first man or woman,implies no adam and eve ever existed,means no original sin,means no fall of man,means humans not born in a state of sin means they dont require a redeemer to take away this fictional sin,evolution is good enough to disprove all abrahamic death cults and not only dat d exodus has also been proven to be hoaxodus by israeli archaeologists,its safe to dump christianity in d graveyard we call mythology dats whr it belongs
thescorpionking2020 9 months ago
Ratings disabled.
Lol, christian videos.
wownov83 9 months ago
The arrogance in Craig's voice is both grating and disturbing.
brainjuice00 9 months ago
Every Gospel was written long after Jesus ascended. By that time, the legend of Jesus grew considerably. I mean, biases, fallacies, and other factors influenced the authors of the Gospels, whoever they were. Just look at the difference of the person of Jesus between Mark's and John's Gospel. The difference is incredible. It's not how apologists like to say that each author wrote from a different point of view, it's proof of the evolving legend of Jesus. The irreconcilable contradictions are many
tadpoleposition 10 months ago
@tadpoleposition Actually most scholars agree that the earliest writings in the N.T. that speak on Jesus' resurrection were written within the first few decades that Jesus is said to have lived. Eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would undoubtedly still have been living to verify or falsify the claims. By your line of logic we must basically throw away every piece of ancient history becuase most of our records in other instances were written much longer after the events happened.
seanstrnad 9 months ago
@seanstrnad "Eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would undoubtedly still have been living to verify or falsify the claims..."
Can you provide a first hand account of a single eyewitness? Also, it's not only the span of time between an event and it being recorded, it's the other factors I mentioned as well.
tadpoleposition 9 months ago
@tadpoleposition The Apostle Paul himself says to have corraborated his facts with Jesus followers, who were allegedly eyewitnesses to the events themselves. Paul cites a Creed that appears to have been passed around in the first Church established in Jerusalem only a few years after Jesus' death, which makes clear reference to a high Christology of Jesus which you claim only originated after many years of evolving legend. Even if the writers were not themselves eyewitnesses,
seanstrnad 9 months ago
@tadpoleposition but contemparies of eyewitnesses, this would still indicate two things: 1) They viewed Jesus as the resurrected son of God from extremely early on, not decades or centuries later when you suggest only then did Jesus take a higher form of diety. 2) Also, contemparies of the eyewitnesses themselves would still have to deal directly with those who were alive to counter their claims, which is what the writers explicitly do by citing the persons Jesus allegedly appeared to.
seanstrnad 9 months ago