The Resurrection of Jesus - Dr. William Lane Craig

[94jmcorrea]

Great, let's move on to study the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba

[Videos4USArmy]

why not talk about the resurrections of Dionysus, krishna, mithra, Osiris, or horus? 

[MrUrosSrb]

@Videos4USArmy Because they didnt resurrect.Only Jesus did.You are getting false information from Zeitgeist.

[bfpicepick]

This is just so messed up. All of his "Facts" are from the Bible. All of the eyewitnesses are biblical characters whose existence, let alone voracity, are questionable. He makes his statements as if they are indisputably based on well-researched evidence and not a matter of faith. Either he is completely deluded or doesn't think faith is enough.

Either way, this is just silly and a waste of time.

[jcantlie]

...'most of whom are still alive, though some of whom are asleep' - I don't doubt it, listening to this tripe.

[saraa49]

Great preaching, Jesus resurrection proves islam is false.

[lizazoon]

@saraa49 Unfortunately the resurrection is never proven. There are no witness acounts.

[seantaylor1334]

@lizazoon Excuse me, do you mean there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus rising from the dead? If so, you are sadly mistaken, for you see, the Gospel accounts clearly attest to the fact there were eyewitnesses of his Resurrection.

I have no idea where you get this notion there were no eyewitnesses. Paul said, I give to you (the Corinthians) what was given to me. That means before Paul had it, which is dated around 4 years after Christ's death, someone gave him the information. Interesting.

[lizazoon]

@seantaylor1334 If the gospel is evidence for itself, if you don`t need any outside evidence, then the Quran is evidence for itself too and so is the " Book of Vedas" and all other religious books.. So :, " Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves "was given to me, does that prove "Ali Baba" is true ? Besides your timetable is off by about 60 years. The first shred of the gospel dates from about 70 AD.

[seantaylor1334]

@lizazoon Now what I gave to you concerning Paul goes into deeper detail, I'll share it with you if you are interested, via PM. I'll have to give you a timeline that gets into more depth. It changed an entire generation's belief on the resurrection of Jesus, as I heard from Dr. Habermas.

[xamot27]

pfft!!!! if he was actually resurrected then god didint really sacrifice his son. wouldnt god know jesus would come back? god knows everything, no?

[seantaylor1334]

@xamot27 Are.... you serious? Is this why you do not believe Jesus rose from the dead???

[xamot27]

@seantaylor1334 umm...common sense, logic, laws of nature and critical thinking are the reasons why i believe no one can rise from the dead. my comment was just an observation. whats your rebuttal to that comment besides "are you serious?"

[seantaylor1334]

@xamot27 Well, here's the thing, that observation is false. For you must not know how much suffering there is invloved with being crucified. Do you know the immence pain he went through? Then ultimately dies.

Just because God knew His Son would suffer on the cross, die, and resurrect doesn't make it any less of a sacrifice. The fact Jesus knew he was going to be put through all of the suffering, and still went through with it is actually more impressive!

[tantzer]

Well, if Jesus appeared to 500 people after his death, we do not know that through the independent testimony of 500 people. We have a bottleneck of one person saying that 500 people saw him.

And if non-Christians and enemies saw Jesus, for this we do not have the testimony of non-Christians and enemies. We have just Christian stories about such confirmations.

I don't think this is a case of deception. It's just a rumor. Rumors of miracles are common in world religions.

[dimic]

Secular - Roman Pantheist historians wrote about Jesus Christ Josephus, Pliny The Younger, Lucian, Talmud The Babylonian, Suetonius(All of these historians wrote of Jesus Christs death and resurrection and are completely upheld as accurate amongst Atheist and Christian scholars to this current date).

[tantzer]

So, you're saying that there are atheists who believe that Jesus was resurrected?

[dimic]

I am stating that the secular historians of that time are respected and considered accurate by Theists and Atheist scholars alike; Athests scholars obviously don't believe in the account of the resurrection but acknowledge that Jesus was crucified and that he had literally existed.

[nschenk]

re: the spread of christianity : it has to do with the fact that in Rome, before Constantine, after the fall of the citizen as a fully integrated member of society, contained, over it's conquered lands, a huge number of destitute, famine riddled people from ongoing wars that were the method of conquoring of lands and the spread of the roman empire. The acquiring of more and more lands and people, taking their land and belongings (cont)

[nschenk]

and not allowing them a proper way to support themselves. There were huge numbers of hardened, sick, poverty striken people willing to do almost anything for a better life. christianity did not require anything of the "user" and death was all around, at all times. The main "comfort" of christianity is that we do not have to fear death because we are "rewarded" with "eternal life" after death.

[nschenk]

What could be more attractive, when someone says: you get all this, if you only will a. believe and b. spread the word

Constantine only "converted" and made christianity the official religion of Rome because it offered easy control of throngs of Romans that were growing beyond the level of governmental control, as well as Rome got to claim sudden authority over the whole belief system. Not a bad deal.

[judoyodan]

Christianity is nearing an end.

This delusion is eroding due to the tranfer of knowledge and reduction of Godly ignorance. It is about time we grew out of this ridiculous superstition that has retarded every positive human endeavor since it's inception.

I for one say GOOD RIDDANCE!

[FallenAngel0fDoom]

I agree, one hundred percent. This is nothing but Bronze/Iron Age nonsense. Note: we will never see another "miracle" again. The word miracle, in the religious sense, is nothing but a claim by the uneducated or the willfully ignorant.

With all our current understandings of outer space and even our earth's atmosphere, the resurrection is completely ridiculous. Stupid people simply can't understand parables or metaphors, even though Jesus and some of his followers seemed to. Pathetic.

[nschenk]

SO well said.....

[nschenk]

Clarification.. my "SO well said" comment was not for this asshole up on the screen, one of the commenters said x-tianity was coming to an end, and good riddance... and I say to that.....

AMEN!

[dimic]

Al - Jazeerah reported that over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity every year within Africa and the Middle East. This is a non - bias statistic that was reported by an Islamic scholar Ahmad al-Katani. Theism in general within the 3 Abrahamic Religions is growning continuously stronger with Islam quickly declining and Christianity rapidly growing.

[nschenk]

Well they can all go live on an island somewhere and argue over the details of their beliefs. Hopefully factions will form and a war will break out and that will be that once and for all.

[garyz4810]

damn keith! you got your ass kicked the proudfemaleatheist.

[atrot3000]

4:30 "The origin of the disciples believe remains inexplicable" ..... I think you can apply that to our times too.

This guy has years of studies and comes with such weak arguments....

[nschenk]

Yes, and to me that proves that after all that exposure to all the information that could possibly support these claims, all that's available *are* weak arguments

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

I seriously cannot believe this video. We know Jesus rose from the dead because there was an empty tomb - were they there? Did they see it? No, but the BIBLE says so - so we are right back to using the bible to prove the bible? Seriously, c'mon...there is NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE for the resurrection. NONE. "the bible says so and the bible is true" is NOT evidence.

[GetREALnThink]

Yes they were there, they were also there to see the big bang.

[PierreElliottTrudeau]

Theists are inferior minded. It is their lack of knowledge and lack of analytical skills that is the cause for world wide political turmoil. They seek "strong leaders" and take them at their word, word for word. What they end up electing are self righteous bigots who always end up either being gay themselves or cheating on their wives. To lack the understanding needed to analyze evidence or to even know what constitutes as evidence is alarming.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

Could not agree more with EVERYTHING you said....and well said too, by the way.

[nschenk]

This is circular logic... which is fallacious, and therefore not acceptable.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

I don't know what post you are referring to and cannot find my previous comments....what did I say that is circular?

[nschenk]

Actually I meant their/his logic is circular:

Using the bible to prove the bible was what you said, and yeah, that's what they're doing in many of these retorts.

[nschenk]

BTW I do disagree with a small bit of your info. Christianity did spread before Constantine, but during his reign was when he decided to make it the offical religion of Rome, and it is my belief he did not do it because he himself was a true christian, but to make sure christians did not become too numerous and (possibly) powerful, and of course Rome adopting it as their official religion made it all that more "credible".

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

Yes I agree with everything you said, when did I disagree with any of that information? I cannot seem to find my original posts....it's like looking for a needle in a haystack....

The spread of Christianity was indeed more due to political reasons than anything else, yet Christians like to claim it spread due to it's being "true."

Again, I guess that makes all other religions "true" as well.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

"Jesus' appearances after the resurrection"

This is just too funny. And we all know those appearances happened for sure because - the bible says so. This is a classic case of using the bible to prove the bible, why do people think Craig is so convincing? He's obviously an intelligent man but his arguments are so full of holes you could drain your pasta in them...

[KeithTruth]

"It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which He appeared to them as the risen Christ." -Atheist Historian Gerd Lüdemann

"I'm not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn't there. I don't know what they saw. But I do know that as an historian that they must have seen something." Paula Fredriksen, Boston University, 2000

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

Again, no evidence whatsoever. I'm not sure why you bothered posting this response. Because a historian WHO WAS NOT THERE and another person WHO WAS NOT there say it happened, it happened?

I think not.

[KeithTruth]

"I'm not sure why you bothered posting this response."

Because no atheist historians or scholars agree with your militant position.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

Oh. And you know this because -??? You know all of them and have asked them this?

And what, exactly, is my "militant position?"

Sam Harris agrees with it. David Mills agrees with it. Gee, they are both "atheist scholars."

[KeithTruth]

Harris isn't qualified to speak or write on this. If you are taking his word for it which I doubt he ever said, you need to find someone else. Harris has a BA in philosophy and is persuing a docterate in neuroscience.

He is not a historian or biblcal scholar.

So for the life of me, how do you explain the rise of earliest Christianity?

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

And a biblical scholar is someone who knows for certain that Jesus rose from the dead, but Sam Harris "isn't qualified." You said atheist scholar. Sam Harris is an atheist scholar.

The rise of earliest Christianity? Very easily. It was done to unite the Roman Empire. When Constantine converted, Christianity spread rapidly and the previous Roman God and temples declined. And I don't understand your question in the first place - how do you explain the rise of earliest Christianity?

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

Are you insinuating that the rise of Christianity is proof that it is true or something?

How do you explain the rise of Buddhism? How do you explain the rise of Islam? All religions have "rose" haven't they?

What is your point?

[KeithTruth]

Islam was by the sword, buhhdism spread because kings accepted it early. Christianity however spread without kings or violence and faster.

Without the original desciples in the bible there would be no Christianity. Our early church tradition such is luke, polycarp, origen, dionysis, tertullian all speak of the death of the original desciples. Pliny, suetonius, taccistus speak of the martydom. explain how this happened and why if no Jesus or desciples.

Go ahead.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

You just actually stated that Christianity did NOT SPREAD BY VIOLENCE????

Are you SERIOUS???? You're kidding, right? You have to be....THE CHRISTIAN CRUSADES? Ever heard of them?

How about the INQUISITION?

That comment was a complete and total JOKE.

[KeithTruth]

1095 A.D. was the first crusade and was in response to muslims trying to take over the world. If it wasn't for those first crusades you would be muslim speaking arabic.

So you say that 1095 at the first crusade was to spread Christainity? HAHAHA

Christainity was around for 1000 years already all over the world. The inquisitions were all after 1000 A.D. and was not responsible for the spread of early Christianity that I speak of.

You have been defeated and exposed proud female atheist.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

"the inquisitions were all after 1000 A.D. and was not responsible for the spread of early Christianity that I speak of."

a ha, caught you fair and square idiot. You simply stated that Christianity was "not spread with violence" I responded that it was, and the Inquisition is an example of this.

Now you change it to "the Inquisition being used to spread EARLY CHRISTIANITY."

The comments prove what you said. Just scroll down and look, fool.

OWNED.

[KeithTruth]

lol you must be brainless we were talking about the origin of Christianity and I asked you how it started. You said it was like Islam and buddhism. I said Islam was by the sword and buddhism was adopted by kings very early.

Christainity however did not use violence or kings to start and spread. You have been badly defeated. Please stop embarassing yourself miss.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

Christianity did NOT spread rapidly before 300. You're a liar, or you're misinformed. You can keep typing it, that's fine. You're wrong. Period.

We were NOT discussing the origin of Christianity. We were discussing the issue of whether Christ rose from the dead. You're also maybe illiterate - how can that be? go back to the beginning of our little discussion.

[KeithTruth]

Maybe go get some help. I can wait if you want someone smarter to take your place in this discussion.

If you think that the first 300 years of Christainity were confined to a small area then you are sadly mistaken. Also, if you think that the crusades which were 1000 years later were the casue of the spread of Christainity then you are lost.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

yet ANOTHER response that does not address/reply to a single fucking word I said (or at least the IMPORTANT ones) in my previous posts.....

You changed the subject. The subject was the resurrection of Jesus. LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE DAMN VIDEO, FOOL The "rise of Christianity" does not prove the resurrection of Jesus any more than the rise of Islam "proves" that Muhammed was the one anointed prophet and messenger of god.

[KeithTruth]

So you concede that everything you said about the rise of early Christainity being started by the crusades and inquisitions is false. Then you also have to concede you didn't know the date of constantine or the crusades or inquisitions or you wouldn't have said something so stupid.

Clement, letter to Corinthian church (95 AD)(non biblical source):

"The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God.

you have been badly defeated.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

No, not remotely conceding anything at all.

Nice try though.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

You have shown yourself to be badly intellectually inferior. I have responded directly to every damn thing you said.

You responded to NOT ONE of my questions/comments. You changed the subject, brought up irrelevant information, and never championed Christianity or Jesus' alleged resurrection at all.

You're an idiot. But hey, just go on stroking your poor bruised male ego into believing that you are "right" and that you "showed me", little man. The proof is right in front of us for all to see.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

You have badly defeated yourself. Very little effort was required by me. Fools like you kick yourself in the ass.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

"So you concede that everything you said about the rise of early Christainity being started by the crusades and inquisitions is false"

Okay, now the gloves are coming off. YOU LYING, DECEITFUL ASSHOLE. I NEVER, NEVER SAID THAT CHRISTIANITY WAS "STARTED BY THE CRUSADES AND THE INQUISITION." WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IDIOT? I SAID THAT THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY ALSO CONTAINED IT'S SHARE OF VIOLENCE. THAT is what I said.

You are a lying, manipulative ASSHOLE & the post says it

OWNED.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

Please stop using the same words I used on you back on me, idiot. Use your own

We were never discussing how Christianity rose. We were discussing your comment about atheist historians/scholars and how one said "I know they saw something" - referring to Jesus. I then said that statement is not proof. YOU THEN BEGAN TALKING about the origins/rise of Christianity, which did NOT EVEN RELATE TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND - the "proof of the resurrection' just b/c certain people claimed they "saw something."

[KeithTruth]

This shows you know nothing. Constantine was 300 years after the rise of early Christianity. Christianity was spread like wild fire before constantine was born.

I'm done, I hope you know what you are doing decieving people.

Good luck.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

Constantine was responsible for SPREADING CHRISTIANITY. You're a dumbass, an uninformed uneducated dumbass, and you're other comment about Christianity "not spreading by any violence" is the most laughable comment I have ever read by even the most stupid moronic Christians I have ever spoken to....you have sunk to a new low on the idiocy level.

Fuck off.

[KeithTruth]

Christianity was around for 300 before constantibe was born. It was already spread rapidly all over. This was not spread by violence. Infact the roman empire would KIL CHRISTIANS FOR THAT TIME.

stupid.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

Dude, again you are not responding to the point at hand, and you're a fucking IDIOT. What is your POINT for how Christianity was spread? WHAT IS YOUR POINT? How does the way it was spread, the time period, the people involved, the methods, etc AT ALL RELEVANT FOR PROVING IT TO BE MORE reliable than any other major world religion?

YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY NOT ANSWERED THIS. You have been exposed for the moron that you clearly are. Now just quit embarrassing yourself until you have a legitimate point.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

Doesn't matter if it was a response to Muslims or not, asshole. It was still a method of SPREADING CHRISTIANITY THROUGH VIOLENCE. And hey - you said nothing at all about the INQUISITION. Gee, I wonder why? Or are you going to say that was "in response to something" also?

dipshit.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

And again, it was NOT "spread rapidly all over" before Constantine. That's a lie. Or an expression of ignorance - which do you prefer there, big guy???

LMFAO....

[KeithTruth]

Read "Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity" By Paul Barnett

Christianity spread rapidly before 300.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

KeithLiar

You have not made one single valid point during this entire discussion...I hope YOU know that..You're a moron.

The early rise of Christianity, before the time of Constantine, was primarily orchestrated by Jesus' direct disciples & the Jewish community he allegedly preached to. WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Since a religion "rose" that makes the religion valid and "right" while others are wrong? Try answering questions rather than responding with questions, you might look a little less stupid

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

And you're quote " But I do know that as an historian they they must have seen something." Did somebody actually say that? Someone who is SMART said that? That is by far one of the dumbest statements I have ever read. How can you not see that? How does she "know they must have seen something?"

[kev3d]

I don't get it. First of all, we are supposed to take as true the writings of superstitious people who were not actually witness to the events described. Further, the Tombs of the Pharaohs were generally empty as well, does this mean they too were resurrected? Because people believed something stupid then means we should today? Caesar thought he was descended from Venus and lots of people believed that. Apologetics is an exercise in willful ignorance.

[Derouin91]

you don't make any sense, the Egyptian pharaohs had all their treasures buried with them, Gold statues, even beer because they thought they would enjoy these things in the after life. Plus there have been mummies that have been found to be Egyptian rulers. after moses led the Israelites out of Egypt the Egyptians didn't have any slaves to build the pyramids so they resulted in burying the Egyptian rulers in the ground to confuse the thieves.

[darkominem]

Wow. You really, REALLY have a limited understanding in Christian apologetics.

You assume these people are superstitious though there are plenty of historians who confirm their existence (and I'm speaking as a man who spent most of his life as an atheist).

The debate in question focuses more on WHAT is true about these historical figures.

Also, your use of Egyptian Pharaohs? Laughable.

[RationalByChoice]

I serioulsy cannot believe that anyone tries to be rational and scientific about "proving" the resurrection of Jesus. How can it be proved? Were you there? It requires blind faith, nothing more.

[darkominem]

So I guess George Washington, Napoleon, Socrates, and Julius Caesar didn't exist either right? Since you "weren't there?"

THINK ABOUT IT--YOU'VE SPENT YOUR WHOLE LIFE TRUSTING "EVIDENCE" THAT PEOPLE TELL YOU: The existence of gravity, black holes, the temperature in which water freezes.

Did you test ALL these things to confirm their truth? Of course not, because you relied on the words of others.

And there are plenty of credible people who believe in the existence of Jesus.

[1ProudFemaleAtheist]

I absolutely love it when you Christians make this stupid argument.

I DID NOT SAY JESUS NEVER EXISTED. LOOK AGAIN AT MY POST. WHEN YOU HAVE DECIDED NOT TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, MAYBE THEN YOU CAN RESPOND.

I said evidence of THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS.

"THINK ABOUT IT--YOU'VE SPENT YOUR WHOLE LIFE TRUSTING "EVIDENCE" THAT PEOPLE TELL YOU: The existence of gravity, black holes, the temperature in which water freezes." - Yes these are scientifically verifiable! the Resurrection is NOT.

[MannaVestimentary]

Are you serious?

[godsalone]

Kinda like evolution? kinda like the big bang?  kinda like gravity? kinda like there being trillions of cells in the human body since no one has ever sat down and counted them??? nice logic!