The Resurrection is it provable?

[Subduction Zone]

Lane Craig's qualifications are in theology and philosophy, he's a Christian apologist, and has zero qualifications as a historian. His ability as a philosopher is also questionable based on some of his public arguments.

He is most notable for his unashamedly biased work "Reasonable Faith", and for being thoroughly drubbed in a public debate by the late Christopher Hitchens.

And his debate with Steven Carroll, a well known astrophysicist that torched his attempts at using science in his apologetics.

In fact I should have checked out all of the possible sources that were listed. Habermas I knew of, but I don't think they will find too much help from him. WLC I rejected because he is a joke. I have a feeling that we are only going to see more circular arguments.

 

[Sheldon]

Nope. Just watch his debate with WLC. Time for you to do some of your own homework for once. And you might see how his various arguments have all been refuted as well. He is not quite at a Kent Hovind level when it comes to dishonesty and delusion, but he is close.

Don't forget Lane Craig's an unashamed apologist for biblical genocide.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't forget Lane Craig's an unashamed apologist for biblical genocide.

Does he believe the Moses myths? I am pretty sure that he rejects the story about the magic boat.

 

[leroy]

Nope. Just watch his debate with WLC. Time for you to do some of your own homework for once. And you might see how his various arguments have all been refuted as well. He is not quite at a Kent Hovind level when it comes to dishonesty and delusion, but he is close.

Why do you maintain this attitude ? why cant you simply point to a specific mistake? You do this all the time, you accuse people for being wrong and for lying, but when ask to quote the specific lie you always refuse to quote a specific example.

 

[Sheldon]

Does he believe the Moses myths? I am pretty sure that he rejects the story about the magic boat.

Not sure, but he has no problem believing in magic per se, that's for sure, though I doubt he'd see it like that. Maybe he's a nice guy, and great company and intelligent, but it doesn't come across in debates.

I remember he tried to misrepresent atheism as a claim or belief, and Hitchens who did make the claim no god exists, and was prepared to take on the burden of proof, pointed out this is not what the word means, only for LC to interject and suggest this would make the word Ah-theism like the a was a negation of theism, like asexual or amoral. The Hitch had the good grace to smile politely, and quietly said well exactly.

There was a massive laugh from the audience, and I swear LC seemed still not to understand why.

 

[Sheldon]

Nope. Just watch his debate with WLC. Time for you to do some of your own homework for once. And you might see how his various arguments have all been refuted as well. He is not quite at a Kent Hovind level when it comes to dishonesty and delusion, but he is close.

Professor Richard Dawkins refused to debate him of course, pointing out it would look great on his (WLC) CV, but not so good on mine. He has a point, a true academic, and Lane Craig isn't really.

CITATION

"Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine."

 

[leroy]

And his debate with Steven Carroll, a well known astrophysicist that torched his attempts at using science in his apologetics.

In fact I should have checked out all of the possible sources that were listed. Habermas I knew of, but I don't think they will find too much help from him. WLC I rejected because he is a joke. I have a feeling that we are only going to see more circular arguments.

Sean Caroll used fancy words and sounded smart , but in reality he didn’t refuted any claim made by WLC, I challenge you to give an example of an actual claim that was refuted.

 

[leroy]

@Subduction Zone


see
This essay examines the contention that Joseph of Arimathaea buried Jesus—in light of what one can know from Greco-Roman culture about the disposal of the bodies of crucified individuals. A survey of the statutes governing the burial of criminals and governing the prosecution of those accused of seditious activity indicates that provincial officials had a choice when confronted with the need to dispose of the bodies of the condemned. Greco-Roman texts show that in certain cases the bodies of the crucified were left to decompose in place. In other cases, the crucified bodies were buried.
Crucifixion and Burial* | New Testament Studies | Cambridge Core


and this article describes 2 expmples of people who where crusified and burrried
Died Like Jesus? Rare Remains Suggest Man Was Crucified 2,000 Years Ago


So is this information good enough to convince that Maybe Bart was wrong? maybe a burial after crusifixtion is not as rare as Bart seems to suggest.

Is this information good enough to convince you that maybe you were wrong in your denial of the burial story?

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone


see
This essay examines the contention that Joseph of Arimathaea buried Jesus—in light of what one can know from Greco-Roman culture about the disposal of the bodies of crucified individuals. A survey of the statutes governing the burial of criminals and governing the prosecution of those accused of seditious activity indicates that provincial officials had a choice when confronted with the need to dispose of the bodies of the condemned. Greco-Roman texts show that in certain cases the bodies of the crucified were left to decompose in place. In other cases, the crucified bodies were buried.
Crucifixion and Burial* | New Testament Studies | Cambridge Core


and this article describes 2 expmples of people who where crusified and burrried
Died Like Jesus? Rare Remains Suggest Man Was Crucified 2,000 Years Ago


So is this information good enough to convince that Maybe Bart was wrong? maybe a burial after crusifixtion is not as rare as Bart seems to suggest.

Is this information good enough to convince you that maybe you were wrong in your denial of the burial story?

Those do not help you. Your first article is not readable. If you had studied this topic you would know that crucifixion was not just done by the Romans. The countries that they conquered tended to copy them. The Jews would crucify too at times. They would then still follow their burial laws. They would not have left bodies up to rot. This case, if you had read some of the articles presented to you by Ehrman and Carrier was a Roman crucifixion, and by their laws, since it was a treasonous crime, would have left him up. If you want to claim that it was a Jewish crucifixion then you could claim that he was taken down, but that would be changing the story quite a bit.

Also, the "nail in the ankle bone" has been refuted. Would you like to see it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sean Caroll used fancy words and sounded smart , but in reality he didn’t refuted any claim made by WLC, I challenge you to give an example of an actual claim that was refuted.

No, he used the science that WLC did not understand. Who is going to understand physics better, an expert in the field or someone that probably never got past high school physics if he got that far? To understand the refutation you would need more than high school physics. I did not see any physicists calling out Sean Carroll.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Professor Richard Dawkins refused to debate him of course, pointing out it would look great on his (WLC) CV, but not so good on mine. He has a point, a true academic, and Lane Craig isn't really.

CITATION

"Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine."

Wow!! Quite the burn by Dawkins. I am betting that none of the WLC supporters read that. Hopefully they didn't. If they did read it and agree with WLC that puts them in the category of Christians that openly believe in an evil God.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

No... you said that Peter wasn't written by Peter. That because Luke didn't name the eye-witnesses translates into he didn't. Proof?

When Peter says that he wrote a letter, it wasn't Peter but then when no name is written (Like John) - then we can't say he wrote it. So, it doesn't matter if it says who wrote it or not, for you it is irrelevant.

Then, though Mark was Peter's protege and very likely was with Jesus, Mark is not an eye-witness. Proof? Proof that Matthew wasn't involved in the writing of the same? Or that he wasn't an eye witness?

Why is Acts not acceptable? Proof that it isn't acceptable?

Basically you are offering your personal opinions at the expense of what was written and what those wrote in the 2nd generation.

Why should I believe your position if you haven't given me anything substantive?

Why do the eyewitnesses not only tell stories that they weren’t there for but also wrote them like they had a tv tropes list and tried to check off as many as they could? I wouldn’t expect fancy literary techniques that were probably lazy back then too. I would expect more realistic writing. There is a difference between what a PhD in literature would write and a kid too innocent to say anything but what they thought unfiltered.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Yes... that is your viewpoint with no substantive evidence of why we shouldn't believe it. It would be like me writing a letter and you saying "I have no reason to believe you wrote it".

We can compare your handwriting. Try that with biblical authors.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What evidence do you have that they were wrong?

Did they meet the authors?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And to those that think that myths cannot arise very rapidly I have two names for you. If you are older: Elvis Presley.

For right here and now: Donald Trump.

In the case of the latter look how many Republicans still believe the lies of Trump.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can compare your handwriting. Try that with biblical authors.

Literalists do not like it when people do that. Scholars can check the "handwriting" or writing styles rather easily. That is one of the giveaways of some of the works are pseudipigrapha. Some of the books of the Bible in the Old Testament also change part way through. Sometimes more than once. Indicating multiple authors.

 

[Sheldon]

Wow!! Quite the burn by Dawkins. I am betting that none of the WLC supporters read that. Hopefully they didn't. If they did read it and agree with WLC that puts them in the category of Christians that openly believe in an evil God.

Oh they kept at Professor Dawkins with petty nonsense, even threatening to hold a debate with an empty chair to represent Professor RD not attending one debate, portraying his indifference to debating a mediocre intellect like WLC as cowardice. None of it worked of course, predictably. He's quite a character is RD, a wicked sense of humour by all accounts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh they kept at Professor Dawkins with petty nonsense, even threatening to hold a debate with an empty chair to represent Professor RD not attending one debate, portraying his indifference to debating a mediocre intellect like WLC as cowardice. None of it worked of course, predictably. He's quite a character is RD, a wicked sense of humour by all accounts.

An empty chair debate might have been interesting:

"New flash! Empty chair defeats WLC in debate!!"

 

[PearlSeeker]

WLC Vs. Ehrman debate

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

 

[Sheldon]

An empty chair debate might have been interesting:

"New flash! Empty chair defeats WLC in debate!!"

Now, if he could've prayed RD into the chair, that would have been compelling.