I think this is why Christians should give a case for the existence of the Abrahamic god before the case for the Resurrection. If it is likely that the Abrahamic god exists, then all supernatural claims are at least possible.

Agree. All of this is predicated on the written record being representative of events as they actually occurred. Much in the works of Homer could be taken the same way, yielding an equally plausible alternative set of beliefs about history. I’m not casting doubt on the resurrection; I’m critically evaluating the argument presented in this video.

And where exactly is the lie?

***** I asked you to point out where WLC was allegedly dishonest. Let's see how you did... "the empty tomb, the post mortem Jesus appearances, these are NOT facts. Despite Craig's claim that scholars agree to these being facts, it simply isn't true. I have personally emailed many biblical scholars and ancient historians and asked them, and they have said NO." Craig actually cites several historians who confirm that the majority of them agree on these facts. He doesn't claim that literally *all* historians agree on them (how would anyone know such a thing?), but until you or any of his opponents in debate can provide proof that he's wrong about the majority of them agreeing, your assertion that he's *lying* about it remains unfounded. "Now aside from what scholarly consensus is or isnt', the fact remains that the empty tomb and appearances of post mortem Jesus, are merely claims in ancient stories." Which is usually enough for historians to take as evidence, particularly when they are attested to by various sources. Remember: the facts themselves are not something inherently suspicious. They are rather mundane. His argument is that a resurrection would be the best *explanation* for these facts, which I think is the most arguable contention here. But like I said, if you think he's lying about the facts being accepted by the majority of historians, you can always provide proof ;)

***** Oh please. Craig is actually often *hated* on for his employment of what critics call "quote mining". Anyone who's actually watched his debates knows that he names historians left and right. But here is an article where you can find names if that's what you're after. I haven't memorized the names, but knowing Craig, the ones in the article are the same ones he uses in every debate: www.reasonablefaith.org/the-evidence-for-jesus Oh, and grow the fuck up. Just because we disagree on something doesn't make me an arrogant prick and you some kind of model character. *Especially* in light of your juvenile attitude.

***** You called WLC a sack of shit. But because I said "Let's see how you did", that's one toke over the line? And no, it's still you who's being juvenile. Anyway, best I can tell, you have a list of names and so does Craig. What to do. Surely not conclude automatically that you're the one who's right! It's not even for sure that he's mistaken, much less that he's intentionally lying.

***** You're still being juvenile, so I'll just respond one more time here. That you've found a handful of scholars to say the majority of scholars don't accept these four historical "facts" does nothing to discredit his own handful of scholars. And for all I know, you've emailed more than just these and others told you YES. Either way, you've still got a looooong way to go to prove that WLC willingly lied, even assuming this handful of scholars is representative of the larger group from whence they came. Personally, I think you're just an anti-theist and therefore despise Craig with or without the suspicion of dishonesty. You're just too damned angry for me to think otherwise. Also, I'm not a theist but I do find theism to be rational enough to keep us from foaming at the mouth as you've been doing. I do hope someday you *do* grow up and realize shit like this is not worth blowing a gasket over.

nope

That’s because they usually have philosophical problems with the Resurrection, not historical.

No, the New Testament authors were not 'skeptics," just the opposite-- they were tall tale spinners.

The gospel writers all copied from the same story, in many cases they copied from each other's writings. That doesn't make the story true. The tale was first spread by word of mouth for a few years, adding and subtracting incidents until it started sounding really good, then it was written down and spread that way. That's how rumors and wive's tales get started, and primitive people love to elaborate their stories with magical BS. Writers of that time employed literary devices like hyperbole and metaphor to get their point across, and that's how virgin birth and rising from the dead got into the tale.

There are no facts for the Resurrection..Craig is a self deluded Apologist untrained in Ancient History..doesn't understand the Bible was shown to be Forged in the 19C Most Ancient Historians know this.. why doesn't Craig: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bd6Gdc-V3t_Df6M.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/q7KTfpaG1Z7eZ5c.html

".funny some of the best evidence comes from those who hated Jesus.." hahaha

Jesus could have been a real person or persons, and so could Robin Hood or Hercules, but the legends written about them are amalgamations of truth and fiction even if they were inspired by events in the lives of real people.

@@danielmcdonagh2889 The gospel writers repeated tall tales about Jesus rising from the dead in order to portray him as a divine being. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary eviidence. Bible stories don't qualify.

No one knows if there was ever a real "Jesus" or not but we can be certain that he was mot born of a virgin or rose from the dead. Christinanity is not dependent on a lieral Resurrection. Only children take religious stories literally, adults should be able to understand the meaning of metaphor.

Saying that an itinerant rabbi was executed by the Romans is one thing, saying he was born of a virgin, a magic star hovered over his birthplace or that he walked on water and rose from the dead demand more proof than merely a book of ancient stories.

+The Reasonable Christian Not one single piece of Historical evidence exists to prove the existence of Christ, outside of the Gospels. No known contemporary at the time of Christ wrote a single word about him. And the Gospel authors are unknown and were born after the death of the supposed Christ. Hearsay and contradictory accounts hold no sway in court.

+ampatau sorry that's just unlearned stupidness.... there is much contemporaneous evidence for Jesus existence. just not a lot of evidence of your research

ampatau Haha why are you begging the question that the gospels are unreliable? Many historical events depend on one source, events mentioned by Josephus for example. This is the fallacy of arguing from silence. Who wasn't writing about Jesus, that should have? Suetonius and Josephus, as well as Tacticusc, are independent from the gospel, but you wouldn't know that would you. You're mistaken, the New Testament is not one source, it's a collection of different early independent sources that were written when there was no such thing as 'the New Testament'. Denying jesus's existence is as bad as denying evolution.

Simen Sebastian Thoresen Atheists are not only denying the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but they are running away refusing to debate William Lane Craig (for instance look at Richard Dawkins).

@@rocio8851 plenty of athiests have debated with him. You must be young to not to know this. Do you understand the burden of proof is? And what is athiesm?

They’re in the Bible……

I believe this is the "Minimal Facts" approach put forward by Gary Habermas

Astaroth IDK

Maki Hayashi : well that certainly made god’s slavery ok then didn’t it? What a putz

@@m.hayashi7598 The bible allows the beating of slaves.

@Aditya Prathap No one knows when the Gospels were written or even who wrote them-- the best estimates are they were written 50 to 100 years after the events they purport to describe.

Thats an argument from incredulity, I can't comprehend or understand why would God choose x rather than y, therefore God is not real

@@SunlightSentinel No but that is a wrong move because instead of universally showing everyone his miracle he sends a guy who doesn’t look divine to a backwards community.

your ignorance is the physical evidence?

A story with accounts from different people can definitely have objective facts in it.

@@1godonlyone119, It absolutely can, but that's not what his comment said

Leon Herperger source?

Leon Herperger this is misleading. historians are not divided on the existence of jesus, and most agree the bible is historically accurate.

Leon. Your comment is total garbage. Virtually all reputable scholars agree that Jesus existed and agree that the Bible is historically accurate.

"Dear God, I know I’m a sinner, and I ask for your forgiveness. I believe Jesus Christ is Your Son. I believe that He died for my sin and that you raised Him to life. I want to trust Him as my Savior and follow Him as Lord, from this day forward. Guide my life and help me to do your will. I pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen." Did you pray this prayer?

So says the father of liars. of which you are 1! God the Son did die- not God the Father! The tomb was not raided by the followers of Jesus- they were all cowards and in hiding fearing for their lives! Then why were these followers allowed to preach the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? There are more than 500 eye witness accounts in the New Testament- so you are of your father the devil(John 8:44) and the works of your father you do!

Your first "fact" should be labeled as a proposition. You would also need to define the word god

I would recommend that you be open to other interpretations of GENESIS. Many very excellent Christian scholars do not consider the Creation event described in Genesis, to be literally 6 Earth days, and many literal 6 dayers also believe in a less than 10,000 year old Earth. Most Jewish scholars say the ancient Hebrew is more consistent with 6 periods of INDEFINITE length. It's rather unsettling that Christians are radically split between these two views!! The FUNDAMENTALISTS insist on a 6 day literal creation and basically they draw the line in the sand that Christians either believe in their literal TRANSLATION (and that's all it is, it's a translation) , or they reject the BIBLE as untrue. I would strongly caution the FUNDAMENTALISTS because the jump to conclude other interpretations of the GENESIS Creation passages, most certainly doesn't make the Christian a lesser believer. There is mountains and I mean mountains of Scientific evidence that the Earth is indeed 4.65 Billion years old and none of the scientific data to suggest otherwise. As a Christian believer AND a PhD Physicist, I uniquely understand the data on dating the age of the Earth and none of the data is bad. If God really made the Earth in less than 10,000 years, then all of the evidence had to be altered by God to fool mankind and we do not believe in a God that deceives, it's not God's nature. God Bless...

@@salmonkill7 - I do not "interpret" Genesis at all. I take it for what it plainly says. If you are interpreting Genesis then you are practicing eisegesis. There is more to consider than just lengths of time. You should consider that plants were created before the Sun, Moon, and stars. You should consider that flying creatures and cetacea were created before any land creatures. All creatures were created in a mere two days. It is impossible for this narrative to mesh with an evolutionary narrative. God has intentionally made His creation narrative incompatible with any narrative men would invent. Your first test of whether or not you would believe God begins on page one of His Word. If you bought a new car, cut off a piece of metal from an inconspicuous place, and sent that piece of metal off to a laboratory to be tested for its age, do you think the result would be relevant? Do you think the car salesman lied to you when he said it was a new car? The Earth was created for Man and all biological creatures to inhabit. When the first man, Adam was created, he was not created as an embryo but as a full-grown man. He even had language. The Earth itself was created as a planet ready for all creatures and man to inhabit. The evidence you see for a billions of years old Earth is really irrelevant and God is no more deceptive than the new car salesman. When you buy a new car, do they deliver to you truckloads of metal ores for you to refine and make car parts out of? Do they give you barrels of oil to turn into plastics and make more car parts? Do you need to put all these parts together? That's silly. You are given a car ready for you to drive away and enjoy. They even wash it for you and provide your first tank of gas. God created the Earth and heavens ready for his dramatic narrative to take place and it's all for Man. Your problem is you believe the words of men before you believe the Word of God. You prefer the honor of men rather than to be honored by God. Jesus said if a man was to follow him that man must give his very life for Jesus. You hang on to your life - your Ph.D. and whatever position it has earned you. Perhaps you think your colleagues would ridicule you if you came out in support of the narrative God provided of creation in 6 days just a few thousand years ago, and quite likely, they would ridicule you. You should forget about the Bible. You can't be a Christian. You have your reputation to protect.

@@rubiks6 I believe in two main themes in the Bible. Christ taught these simple rules and they are Love God with all your Heart and Love your neighbor as yourself. It's not about trusting Man. God is the God of Science, not mankind. God made these rules of nature. What you unfortunately don't understand is how much of your Genesis is TRANSLATION of the ancient language, coupled with your ignorance of God's Science. There are literally 100 INDEPENDENT facts that prove within very tight tolerance that the Earth is 4.65 Billion years old. God would have to lie and make each of the independent facts of GODS own Creation EXACTLY APPEAR OLD. Now what is more PROBABLE, that your interpretation is incorrect, or that the SCIENCE is all wrong AND GOD acted like a lier and made the EARTH LOOK 4.65 BILLION years old?? Which is more likely? Dr. John Lennox has am excellent video on the 6 days that divided the World. It speaks to this very conundrum. Peace be with you. As I tell my students it's Christ's clear messages we should be paying the most attention to and not obscure Creation stories of Genesis. God only needs to convey that God created the Earth and Universe and Genesis is not a Science "how I did ot manual". God Bless.... .p.s. examine the tone you take with me, it's very wrong to judge other people. Be careful with that, it's God that will be our judge... I don't doubt your a Christian and you definitely should not doubt me, just because I know Science!!

@@salmonkill7 - I do not judge you. The Word of God judges you. The Author of the Word of God judges you. You make God out to be a liar. Do you think God misspoke when He gave Moses the words to write? Do you think God is so poor in His ability with language that He could not communicate billions of years if that were the true narrative? It is you making God out to be deceptive. God is not deceptive. Creation happened *_exactly the way God said it happened._* You are the one deceived by men. _"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold,_ *it was very good.* _And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."_ - Genesis 1.31 (Emphasis added.) Billions of years of death and disease are not "very good." Thorns and thistles are not "very good" but are the result of the curse, _after_ Man was created. Do you also deny the curse? If you deny the curse then you deny the very reason Jesus Christ came to Earth and died on the cross. That denial is anathema. That denial is a grevious heresy. That is the kind of denial that will earn for you eternal Hell. There is only one main theme in the Bible - the redemption of Man by the Son of God, Jesus Christ. I own John Lennox's book, "Seven Days that Changed the World." I was extremely disappointed when I read it. John Lennox is a very wise and knowledgeable man who is, nevertheless deceived. God will turn the wisdom of the wisest men into foolishness. Will you be included in that crowd? The Lᴏʀᴅ says ... _“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”_ - 1 Corinthians1.19 Perhaps you have a bit too much wisdom, a bit too much discernment. I say you are not a Christian because you do not recognize the main theme in the Bible, the redemption of Man by Jesus' death on the cross. Do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus?

@@rubiks6 You are extremely judgemental, I will pray for you ....

None yet, but you just wait 'til he comes back, he'll open a can of whoopAss on you then for not believing in him. He'll love the SHIT out of you, straight to eternal torture in hell. "For Gawd so loved the world that he sent his only son to deliver a message, and that message was LOVE ME, OR I'LL SEND YOU TO THE BASEMENT FOR ETERNAL TORTURE" I mean, if you're not going to take the threat of eternal torture (and maybe some light BDSM on Thursdays) as proof (or at least fairly strong evidence) that the torturer is love incarnate, I honestly don't know how to reach you...

qlout you really couldn't smell the sarcasm there? I poured it on as thick as I could.

qlout I've never seen a Christian be quite that funny while also being coherent, at least beyond the first complete sentence. At least I thought I was being funny ;) It's hilarious that this guy is talking about how the details in Tolkein's description of the Orks can be taken as evidence that Orks are real. Just imagine how hard life would be if their brains acted like that 24/7.

@@ahgflyguy lmao

You do realize that He’ll is a choice, right? A choice YOU make, not God. All God does is send you where you want to go... :/

And humans don't come back from the dead.

Actually bunnies do have ova, just as all mammals do, so in a sense they lay eggs even though they give birth to live young.. This logic is not more tortured than arguments for the Resurrection or other so-called miracles.

Ok, but you have to contend with the fact that there are 4 eye witness accounts of the resurrection, and that none of the people who saw it never recanted. All of the 11 disciples were willingly martyred for their belief that Jesus rose from the grave. Why would they do that? Why would Peter allow himself to be crucified upside down for a lie? In their day, they had no hint at what Christianity would become. I'm not going to pretend like corrupt churches don't manipulate people, but bad behavior by followers doesn't make the gospel or the resurrection any less true.

@@jabara83 they weren't eye witness accounts.

@@m.hayashi7598 um ok

how?

Paul J a well articulated refutation of his claims! Thank you for this insight!

@@connordurham4289 Thank you; but somehow I sense in that the same disingenuity as exhibited by "Dr" Craig. He is The most dishonest duplicitous odious loquacious disembler on the whole apologist circuit. He is a charlatan a fraud a liar and like Sye Ten Brugencate, a profoundly nasty piece of work. I despise him, it is a pleasure to attack him and all the sanctimonious histerical nonsense he spouts. The god he promotes, as described in the bible, simply cannot exist; and given his obvious intelligence, demonstrated by his eloquence, "Doctor" Craig must know this. But like Billy Graham before him he just cant; cant just stop lying, it`s much too lucrative. Given enough repetition the Qur`an becomes "the truth" but that is odious bullshit, isn`t it?

"Dear God, I know I’m a sinner, and I ask for your forgiveness. I believe Jesus Christ is Your Son. I believe that He died for my sin and that you raised Him to life. I want to trust Him as my Savior and follow Him as Lord, from this day forward. Guide my life and help me to do your will. I pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen." Did you pray this prayer?

Dennis Nowland haha why?

@@davidhatcher7016 He has no answer LOL.

One word to describe atheism.

"Dear God, I know I’m a sinner, and I ask for your forgiveness. I believe Jesus Christ is Your Son. I believe that He died for my sin and that you raised Him to life. I want to trust Him as my Savior and follow Him as Lord, from this day forward. Guide my life and help me to do your will. I pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen." Did you pray this prayer?

You are working very hard to discredit Christian beliefs, it seems to me like you are clutching at straws. It's easier to just believe.

Who are this "we" you're talking about, that don't know some things? Do you have a dissociative identity disorder? 0.0

@@watcherwriter1689 "It's easier to just believe." facepalm

@@Zibit21 LOL

@@davidhatcher7016 rather than make long lists of excuses not too. It's easier because the evidence is stronger.

Birdieupon really?

"Dear God, I know I’m a sinner, and I ask for your forgiveness. I believe Jesus Christ is Your Son. I believe that He died for my sin and that you raised Him to life. I want to trust Him as my Savior and follow Him as Lord, from this day forward. Guide my life and help me to do your will. I pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen." Did you pray this prayer?

Why someone will die for ur sin One has to pay for thier own sins How one person can take crores of peoples sins Is it not illogical Vedas are clear about karmas and results That's what we observe in this world