Orthodox_Freethinker

I know that it's easy to brush off Craig, especially with his support for the Intelligent Design movement. However, his argumentation for the historicity of the resurrection is rather solid while compared to the objections of skeptics.
Crossan's argumentation against Craig on the resurrection of Christ is the weakest that I've ever seen. Crossan did not even bother to refute Craig's points but insisted that the resurrection must have been 'metaphorical', without even presenting evidence for this claim.

Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
William Lane Craig
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth22.html

If there must be this huge ultimate challenge in which a poster 'wins', then I would challenge a skeptic, on his own accord, to refute Craig's points.

Toto

Dude, you've barged in here with claims that have been refuted time and time again. William Lane Craig is an intellectually dishonest evangelical used-idea salesman, and he has no case to rebut.

If you think Craig is the last word, why don't you try to counter Jeffrey Jay Lowder's detailed rebuttal printed here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...der/empty.html

In 2002 I heard Craig debate Luedemann, and read the book on one of their prior debates. My notes are here. To quote myself, when I knew less than I know now:

Orthodox_Freethinker

I am sorry, the point of this thread is to disprove Craig on your own accord. Did you actually write the articles which you have provided?
Furthermore, do your own words demonstrate that the non-resurrection is more reasonable of a belief than a historical resurrection?

Amaleq13

It is rather ridiculous to offer a linked argument by someone other than yourself but refuse to accept a linked refutation of that same argument by someone other than the posting member. This is especially true considering that the refutation is by an IIDB member.

Orthodox_Freethinker

For this particular thread, the burden of proof should be on the one who doubts Craig's evidences.
In debating in the public square, sometimes you have to accept criterons which you do not like.
If someone actually definitively disproved the evidences, preferably by providing negative evidence against Craig, I'd concede.

Toto

Craig has no evidence. Let's just take the empty tomb argument:

There is no mention of an empty tomb before the gospel of Mark was written. Paul knows nothing about an empty tomb. Craig's "evidence" that there was an empty tomb is essentially that if it weren't empty, the authorities could have quashed the early Christian movement by producing a body, or a tomb with a body in it, and that the disciples would not have believed in the Resurrection if there were no empty tomb. But he has no historical evidence of the nature of that early Christian movement, if it even existed, no way of showing that the whole empty tomb story was not a later allegory that no one was supposed to take as fact.

What can you say to support the idea that there was an empty tomb?

Amaleq13

Your restriction against linking to the arguments of others has nothing to do with the burden of proof. Craig had the burden when he presented his argument and Lowder had it when he presented his refutation against Craig.

I did not call the restriction "ridiculous" because I don't like it. I did so because it makes no sense given that the OP is essentially a link to someone else's argument.

Mageth

Bodies that have been dead for three days don't suddenly get up and walk around again, good-as new. Nor do human bodies (normal or re-animated) walk through doors and perform other assorted super-human feats.

That's a much more reasonable belief than that they do.

Orthodox_Freethinker

This is a hotly contested claim. In order for it to be taken seriously, you must provide evidence in its favor.

1 Corinthians Chapter 15
1
1 2 Now I am reminding you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you indeed received and in which you also stand.
2
Through it you are also being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3
3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
4
that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5
that he appeared to Kephas, then to the Twelve.
6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7
After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8
Last of all, as to one born abnormally, he appeared to me.


Given that Jesus was buried and then rose on the third day, it is directly implied that the tomb was empty. This is a matter of cause and effect. As a Pharisaical Jew, there was no concept of resurrection to Paul other than physical resurrection.

Furthermore, the lack of negative testimony against the empty tomb is rather valid. It causes one to wonder what kind of people would die for what they knew for a fact to be a corpse. The Apostles must have all been mentally insane.

Orthodox_Freethinker

If you had reliable testimony that it did happen, then it would be reasonable to believe. This is what Craig attempts to provide and what I am inviting you to refute.