How Not to Defend Jesus' Resurrection (with William Lane Craig) 

You were actually asking not stupid, but intelligent questions. What was not so intelligent was the reptilian brain response you got!

Was never a christian, but I hear similar stories from all over, especially when the person is young. "Believe what we say because we said so!" God needs better salesmen.

Same here Rob around 10 asked to many questions and was removed from SS class then was told my questions were basically dumb.

I was in a slightly better situation as a Catholic, but my difficult questions lead, in the end, to what George Carlin dubbed, "Heavy Mystery Time". I think that was what started to erode my faith, though I was not aware of it. This adult, this so-called authority on god a the spiritual could be stumped by an eight year old.

You too? They proceeded to try to "lay hands on me" in front of the congregation as a result of my questioning and because I was taught about stranger danger in school I screamed loudly and told them not to touch me. I was pronounced to be most certainly possessed by some sort of demon and was permanently banned from church along with my extended family. Religion is... something else.

Then I hope they see it and start to think. All my best.

If there’s a shot at getting cynics to question whether this video uses critical thinking for a second, it will be because they’ve actually researched real scholarly material on the resurrection.

@@williamprice3486 Like what?

@@williamprice3486 You mean Christian apologetics, right?

@@williamprice3486 *"Cynics?"*

Thank you, sir. Maybe we can blame C.S. Lewis?

I agree. It's intentional to not acknowledge the evolution of religion as a possible explanation for their own belief system. Liar lunatic or lord presents a false trichotomy that in my opinion precludes the obvious answer.

awwww Koolaid You're EVERYWHERE, just like GOD! 😁

@@Paulogia I’m surprised a man best known as a fantasy author would discount bits of a story being made up.

@@Kastled5 he wrote more than just Narnia?

Samuel Gunnestad because he was tired of his uncle Bilbo going on and on about his magic ring. also t he ring was driving his uncle insane so he needed to destroy it. he also felt pent in in the Shire and felt he needed an adventure to keep from losing his own mind. :)

Fuck off with this stupid and old LOTR comparison. The TRUE comparison is that Rand al’Thor is the Dragon Reborn, you HEATHEN!!! 😉

@@losttribe3001 Christ metaphor as a Christ metaphor? Metaphor-ception.

Seneca Rapson Always look for the spinning dreidel!! 😂😂😂

Because faith, dude.

I thought a really persistent ice cream van had pulled up outside...

@@Brickerbrack Reminds me of Eric Morcambe upon seeing an Ambulance zoom by : "He won't sell many cones like that!"

It sounds like the first few words of "Windy"- "Everyone knows its..."

Are you insane?

Loved it too.

I'm not going to get it out of my head :)

Every time the jingle played I looked for the ice cream van.

Ding 🔔

ding-ding DING-ding Ding-Ding-Ding!

I hope your being sarcastic

funny how he says “if people made it up, they would put males as witnesses...” which is exactly what is in the book of john

Well stated! Isn't it amazing that the laws of nature seem to be regarded as less binding, less absolute, than a man-made legal law, to the point of regarding something as totally impossible to have happened when it contradicts the man-made law.

@@tkat6442 It is certainly amazing, because I know what it's like to think this way. I used to be a Christian and I spent about 3 years trying to rationalise my beliefs, in exactly the same way Dr. Craig does. What I finally realised after all those years is that if God expects us to perform these mental gymnastics in order to gain salvation, then God isn't being reasonable with us.

@@philipcervenjak2493 I too spent too many years thinking that way. I know people who were brought up without religion (lucky, lucky people), and they go through life not giving it a thought. They don't believe, and they have thought it through and know why they don't believe and are not likely to fall for any foolish arguments, but it doesn't hold the same angst for them that it does with people like us who used to believe and have seen through it. They hardly think of it; it's never far from my mind. They're indifferent to it; I'm outraged by it.

These statements are not supported by science. This is just some bizarre and misguided philosophy of ethics.

@@tkat6442 Neither you nor the OP know anything about the laws of nature.

I actually can believe that, but the Bible? Just parts of the Old Testament for me.

I've seen those before. RU-vid's algorithm needs some work.

I got that one too. Lol.

"Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes" is the definition of insanity (or ballet practice... nah, definitely insanity :D No way Paul can go onto the tips of his toes!)

I know, right! Let's call it rhetoric ;)

Better than Sean Carroll: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Gye1XE0kVJY.html. Dishonest ginger and a third rate scientist that rejects Allah's Prophet (peace be upon him). Quotes a 'quantum eternity theorem' that by definition doesn't apply to our universe as evidence against prophet Al-Ghazali 's illuminated reasoning.

_Or it was just a fucking movie._ -- *HERETIC!*

_the_ religion or more than one?

@@erict.watson2460 religions in general but, in the last sentence, I was specifically referring to "the" specific religion that any apologist is advocating for. For instance WLC is advocating for Christianity, even when he is making general deistic logical arguments.

It is also worth noting that the arguments don't really change even when they are thoroughly refuted. There are reasons for that, and none of them reflect well on them.

@@PrometheanRising exactly right.

+Tanja Van Kessel, writes _"It’s a bit scary to see how many people accept everything in the bible as absolute truth."_ What I find scarier is that most of those people have no idea what is actually in the bible.

@@fred_derf It's my experience that the most idolatrous know the least about what it actually says. I call them "Chick Tract" Christians: those who can only repeat the most commonly quoted verses from the Tracts or from pastors and never actually read the thing themselves.

@@imjessietr29, referring to christians who don't know what's in the bible writes _"I call them "Chick Tract" Christians:"_ Sounds about right.

"Absolute truth" except for creationism, Genesis, the literality of the zombie horde, etc. WLC is one of those Christians who cherry-picks what parts of the Bible are literal and what aren't with absolutely no hermeneutic justification that isn't totally ad hoc. It's nice that that makes him not a science denialist, but it is really hypocritical.

Frederic Christie He’s a very eloquent speaker but that doesn’t change the fact that there is zero proof that christianity is true.

Possibly from the Hebrides, certainly not Glasgow or Edinburgh.

Beam me up Scotty.

That would be wonderful. My people come from the West Highlands, the area around Skye.

@@fosgnosis6336 Because something that is possible, even if unlikely, is still more likely than the impossible. Very simple actually.

@@fosgnosis6336 When I use the words possible or impossible, I mean naturalistically. It is naturalistically impossible for someone to return from the dead, at least as far as we know. But, you are proposing a supernatural agent. Supernatural is just another word for magic. So, you are wanting to use magic as an explanation. And while I don't think I can say magic doesn't exist, the ability to determine the probability of some magical explanation is impossible to determine. So a natural explanation, even if unlikely, is by definition more probable because you can't even determine the probability of magic. You see, once you allow use of magic as an explanation, you don't get to just accept magic you like and not accept magic you don't like. If you were in a courtroom and the defendant in a murder change said that the evidence against him was faked by Satan, ie., magic, you'd have to let him go. You can't prove him wrong. You can't prove Satan didn't do it. And you can't reject it as preposterous magic because you ALREADY ACCEPT PREPOSTEROUS MAGIC. A God that kills himself and resurrects himself in order to change his own rules. LOL! Any idiot not indoctrinated in your BS can see its obvious mythology. Obviously.

@@CaseAgainstFaith1 You are very kind, to give them so much credibility, but we have not to assume that Harry Potter or Alice in Wonderland are anything more but stories. The same is true for Jesus stories. We have here fiction, walking over water, turning water into wine, multiplying food are all fictional elements we find in other fictional stories, but even if not a story has to actually be proven bit for bit to see if it holds any non fictional element at all

All of the arguments taken collectively, even (or maybe especially) if regarded as accurate, just serve as a bundled together version of the Argument from Ignorance.

Agree.

I’ve watched plenty of WLC and consider it impossible for him not to be dishonest. When he’s told to his face by an expert in the relevant field that an argument he’s using is wrong and totally misrepresents what all science and the consensus of experts think he ignores it and uses the same false argument in his next debate.

@@JohnSmith-fz1ih WLC reuses his refuted claims over and over like he is an old videotape.

@itsasin1969 The things we did in class utilized the "herd mentality" sort of thinking. When 2 or more people say something, especially if some of them are authority figures, then others are very willing to accept it in order to fit in. It even can go to the point where they will believe that they see something which isn't there.

*John Wescott* Nicely put, never mind the words, not even the accent had any merit.

The narrator gave me the impression he had seen a poll which cited the Scottish accent as being widely trusted and decided to have a go at it.

@@joemcghee2364 that is not a scottish accent. Trust me, I'm Scottish.

@@magnuspeacock5857 I'm well aware of that , being a Scot also .My comment was that he was making a poor attempt at a Scottish accent .

@@joemcghee2364 I thought it was Irish. But then I am a west coast American so all those Europeans sound the same.../s

Having your blood be wine will do that to a man

pff, i got no notification again. damn you shannon!

For the Shannon told me so.

Seems like damage control.

I watched your thing on Christian psychologist. You're so bothered that they don't get the accreditation do normal channels. I just wonder why you are so sold on psychiatrist thet do go through normal channels. Considering that one in six every American are on drugs to deal with life, mostly antidepressants. With this sudden onslaught psychiatry... things just seem to be getting worse. People trying to kill themselves at a higher rate then ever. It seems that you are in favor of a failing system. It seems at the process is what's important to you and not the outcome.

I got my notification when I woke up this morning.

Yeah, can't let the faithful see any dissent.

They believe it the false nonsense. Think about sir, if you believed in the Noah's Ark story then the Resurrection story is child's play.

@@JohnMorris-ge6hq True!

Comments are disabled inside church as well.

You can listen to Part One of WLC’s response to this video, here: www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/a-youtube-response-to-the-resurrection-part-one/

MojoPin1983 no thanks bub!

@@MojoPin1983 Yes WLC wants to make more money from the sheeps. So he has to pretend his false claims are just misunderstood.

To be more precise, because he is a religious apologist. I bet I can become a perfectly honest tiramisu apologist.

Craig is an apologist - dishonesty is his primary stock in trade.

@@nicolasandre9886 To be even more precise because he is a religious apologist and just like God he needs your MONEY.

Because he's in very very deep with Christianity. It is his career, community, and family and accepting reality would make his entire world crumble.

Cause it's his job like a waste water worker.

Craig is a word salad master. His words sound intelligent but there is no evidence to back them up. Just faith. Notice that Craig irritates some listeners and delight others. The faithers vs the thinkers.

@@JamesRichardWiley I agree for the most part with what you say, James, but to me his words often do not even sound intelligent. In debates with atheists he often begins by saying such things as "if atheism is true" .... etc. It's as if he does not even know that atheism has nothing to do with "being true." Atheism is simply a position that does not accept that a god exists. He talks about it as though it's an assertion that there is no god. He also argues very badly, very often, for example, stating over and over that the Kalam cosmological argument is sound, despite having it having been demonstrated over and over again to him that the Kalam gets nowhere near to proving a god exists, let alone the god he believes in. It's as if he's incredibly dumb, and just hopes no one has heard his arguments before. Every time I've watched him debate he will use the same tired old crappy arguments that were very soundly refuted in earlier debates, but he has not even bothered to address the refutation. He often preaches in the course of a debate. I think he's one of the worst theists of all.

@@gaynomadic yep. It is funny how so many of the most prominent apologists fail to learn anything from their debates. When someone gets their argument smashed and they just keep trotting it out rather than at least attempting to reform it, it is clear evidence that something is not on the level.

@@PrometheanRising Faith over-rules science, reason, and knowledge for the brainwashed

The Bible asserts various extraordinary claims, some of them contradictory..... But, No attempt is made to prove anything.

Reasonable Speculation,..Are you truly that ignorant? Every christian science believer and apologist on earth spend every waking moment trying to claim everything in the "Wholly Fable" is true and proven.

Poe397 ..I said the Bible makes claims, but makes "no attempt to prove anything"... Is there some mathematical, evidentiary, or experimental proof in the Bible that would pass the scrutiny of the Scientific Method?? … If so, please allay my alleged ignorance.

@@reasonablespeculation3893 Books are not living breathing entities and are therefore unable to, in and of themselves prove anything but the fact it is intended to be taken as proven truth and idiots accept that pretty much makes your statement null and void.

It is so ridiculous referring to events in a book of acknowledged fables as "facts".

It's what Jesus would do.

What are the most interesting things you're learning?

Not to mention his talks about his book afterwards. I think scientists don't care and the religious are not interested in attacking his arguments.

@@MDHilgersom Sure... and I can understand why Christians would avoid engaging with the argument and they've tended to simply ignore it... but I can't figure out why it hasn't been considered more closely by skeptics. Is it too extreme a paradigm shift for people to even wrap their heads around?? Do even atheists find some comfort deep down in assuming there was at least 'a guy called Jesus'? I really don't know... but I'm still waiting for a convincing argument against The Doherty Thesis as expounded by Carrier... had plenty of ad-hominems, straw-men, a-priori dismissals and deferrals to the 'authority' of someone like Bart Ehrman with no further investigation... but I haven't seen one comprehensive rebuttal of the arguments in his treatise. I find it infuriating... if there's a good reason to reject Christ Myth Theory, I wanna hear it. Been searching for a long time and still nothing.

Yeppers, would need to see at least on contemporary account of this jesus guy. Not going to take it that he was a real person or based on a real person "on faith". The same credibility is not given to that of any other mythical figure such as Merlin, Hercules, or such.... there is more "proof" of the Buddha being based on a real person but that is highly contested even with a boat load more evidence than anything surrounding that of a middle eastern zombie.

@Bayonne Blasphemer Shout out also to Dr Robert Price and Dr Hector Avalos... two more PhDs who don't believe in a historical Jesus... ... for a community who can readily accept that the gospels and epistles are weak historical sources full of contradiction, fraud, embellishment and impossible nonsense... it's strange that people (like Bart Ehrman) can't take that small extra step and consider whether the entire story is indeed fabricated.

@@dan7478 This is a common misconception. Mythicists don't actually make one assertion but two: 1. That the Jesus we know is mythical, 2. That therefore the historical Jesus doesn't exist. Most scholars, including Ehrman, agree with the first assertion but find the second logically dishonest. It's the A leads to B jump in rationale that scholars object to precisely because it's the same kind of misapplication of logic that THIS VIDEO is criticizing. Most scholars of the New Testament who aren't religious don't make assertions either way. They either don't think the historicity of Jesus matters or agree with the general consensus that there PROBABLY was a historical preacher named Jesus who said some of the things in the gospel who got crucified for one reason or another by the Romans around 30 CE. Some of them, like Ehrman, have pet theories regarding the latter, which is why they can be pretty rabid in defending the historicity of Jesus. This is problematic because they then make the same unsupported logical leaps mythicists make. What I'm saying is that the Ehrman vs. Carrier debate masks the basic problem that both are making the same kind of dishonest leap of logic. So what is the balanced stance? 1. Jesus as we know him is a myth. That is the global scholarly consensus that no one questions. 2. There may or may not have been an actual Jewish preacher named Jesus who was crucified around 30 CE, but this historical Jesus bears little resemblance to the mythical Jesus worshipped as God today. 3. The gospel narrative is unreliable and may be entirely made up. This is also not debated at all in scholarly circles. Now, in all the debates about the historicity of Jesus what is often forgotten is that the gospels record many things he supposedly said, and that many of these sayings don't agree with the Christian views of their mythical Jesus. Sure many of the sayings could have been made up. Yet BECAUSE they were made up SOMEONE must have come up with the sayings to begin with. These did not come out of thin air. Some mythicists have claimed that these sayings were modified from Old Testament quotes, but that has long been proven to be false. A more honest analysis shows that many of the sayings are actually derived from the sayings of Hillel, the progenitor of the Pharisaic movement. However, others clearly go against Pharisaic teachings, while others still show agreement with the apocalyptic ideology of the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This indicates that historical people living in the era of Jesus' supposed ministry must have come up with these sayings, because it has been shown again and again (especially by scholars of Rabbinic Judaism) that all four gospel writers are completely ignorant of actual Jewish theology and exegesis in their own time, much less the time of Jesus. The gospel writers could not have made up the sayings themselves. This means that a historical "Jesus" must have existed, either in the form of an itinerant preacher with radical views based on a mishmash of ideologies from other Jewish sects of his age, or a number of people whose sayings and deeds were amalgamated into a single character. This is the problem mythicists are unwilling to address when they make their thesis on the Jesus myth. Unlike mystery religions and pagan cults that have no need for theology, Christianity started out purely theological like every other Jewish sect, and theological cults NEED real-life theologians for the cult to exist in the first place. There must have been a historical "Jesus" for Christianity to exist. He's not the Jesus we know today, but "he" must have lived in the time period attributed to "his" ministry for the teachings passed down in the gospels to exist.

Yes, and since this is William Lane Craig's ministry it is clear that they've taken his constant, often verbatim, recycling of arguments to its pinnacle here.

Dr SleepingEyes 1. They literally cannot. They literally don’t have anything else. 2. Apologetics is not really for convincing skeptics. It is to give comfort to the faithful. And for that, the same old shit keeps working.

Yes, I know it's wrong but I was expecting more! Certainly not so many _"for the Bible tells me so's"_ jingle!!

Waiting for atheists to grow some brains so you stop ironing the great arguments you leave not answered.

@@joehinman1026 LOL Please, Comedy hour was actually a few hours ago, bud.

Bonedigger Bonedigger Dogs in the moonlight Far away from my well-lit door Mr. Beerbelly Beerbelly Get these mutts away from me You know I don't find this stuff amusing anymore :-)

🎼 If you'll be my bodyguard, I could be your long - lost pal 🎶 🎼 I can call you Betty, and Betty when you call me _you can call me Al_ 🎶 🎼 _You can call me Al_ 🎶

When I was walking down the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today -- I wish that man would go away.

@@pauligrossinoz I always thought it was Eddie.....

@@JohnDlugosz Hughes Mearns!

Skeptics can't explain how Athena sprang room the forehead of Zeus... Must be true.

That sound effect made me think of a slot machine when you have a 2 credit win.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s clickbait.

@@John_W Foreheads exists so must the story be true Halleluah!

It's altogether possible Paul is made up too.

@@kranichkrone Which probably comes from the older Docetic belief that Jesus wasn't a full human, having a semi-divine nature, so didn't need to eat, sleep and couldn't die. This in turn probably comes from a Greek Platonic background or from Zoroastianism. The Quran explains that he just "appeared" to die, appear is docein in Greek = Docetism. It pops up in the Quran despite that books insisting that Jesus wasn't in any sense diving, just a human prophet. So it's yet another example of religions riffing on earlier ideas without understanding the implications of doing so.

Thank you, Shal! spread the word...

Of whom everyone sounds like they copied from each other some content while they invented other content or even changed copied content. They surely did not even try to write the same story. They had 5 different Jesuses at least.

@@TorianTammas And yet it is infallible some how... Hehe

Reasonable faith is no longer faith.

Not an oxymoron; self-contradictory.

@@ratamacue0320 From Merriam Webster online; Definition of oxymoron : a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel kindness) broadly : something (such as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

@@exilfromsanity you're missing the "a concept" part. As I understand it, an oxymoron is two normally contradictory words which are put together to create a new meaning, e.g. "same difference" is an oxymoron meaning "same thing".

@Josue Olivas Well, demonstrate there is a "god's way" , then maybe your sentence will make sense. There is no such thing as reasonable faith. If it's reasonable, then it's not faith anymore, faith is unreasonable, by definition. You can believe gravity is real on faith, you can believe gravity doesn't exist on faith. Faith is unreasonable by definition.

Yeah, he spent a couple of unpleasant hours on the cross and was up wandering just fine a couple of days later, so not much of a sacrifice.

The most interesting question is for whom? Why could some scheme to "forgive" not being performed any other way?

Yes, he was. We have four, early, independent biographies on his life, as well as various extra-Biblical sources. In fact, we have more evidence for the life of Jesus than virtually any historical figure of antiquity.

@@MojoPin1983, writes _"We have four, early, independent biographies on his life,"_ You have four heavily dependent "biographies" on his life that were written decades after his supposed death, decades where the stories were passed on orally. Four "biographies" that disagree on many key points of his life. _"as well as various extra-Biblical sources."_ The only extra-biblical sources you have were written decades after his supposed death and were reports on the beliefs of the "new" christian religion. _"In fact, we have more evidence for the life of Jesus than virtually any historical figure of antiquity."_ That's laughably wrong, we have actual coins (physical coins) with the likenesses of various Cesars on them. We have hieroglyph records of Egyptian Kings written while the Kings were alive. We have no contemporary records of jesus's existence at all. FFS we have contemporary reports of Pontius Pilate, reports that don't include any mention of crucifying a itinerant Jewish Rabbi who came back to life three days later.

@Fred Derf Most ancient biographies are written well after the death of the person they are about. For instance, our earliest biographies of Alexander The Great’s life were written by Arrian and Plutarch *400* years after his death, yet they are still widely regarded as reliable sources. Contrast that with the gospels and Paul’s letters, which were written during the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. The discrepancies in the gospel accounts only arise in secondary details, which don’t make or break their authenticity, nor affect the core of these biographies. They all agree on the central and crucial aspect: Jesus’ bodily resurrection. That’s the preeminent event that they all affirm. “The only extra-biblical sources you have were written decades after his supposed death and were reports on the beliefs of the "new" christian religion.” Why are you favouring extra-Biblical accounts over the gospels and Paul’s letters? “In fact, we have more evidence for the life of Jesus than virtually any historical figure of antiquity." Let me rephrase that:I meant with respect to a historical narrative of writings. Are you honestly denying Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion? This isn’t even a contested issue among contemporary New Testament scholars and ancient historians. We have, early, multiple, independent biographies that record this, not to mention Paul’s citation of said event. There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis. Virtually all ancient historians and New Testament scholars (Christian, Jewish and secular) affirm the following: ‪*4 Established Facts About the Historical Jesus Affirmed by the Majority of Ancient Historians and New Testament Scholars:*‬ ‪*The Resurrection of Jesus:*‬ www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/jesus-of-nazareth/the-resurrection-of-jesus/ *Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate:* www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman/ ‪*Fact #‬1:* *After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin named, Joseph of Arimathea. The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is one of the most solid facts of history.* *Fact #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.* *Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This a fact which is universally acknowledged today by New Testament scholars.* *Fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead, despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.*

@@MojoPin1983, writes _"The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is one of the most solid facts of history."_ You can say that all you want, and so can your "New Testament Scholars" who all believe the bible is the 'inerrant word of god' but that doesn't make it true.

@Fred Derf With respect, boy, you’re out of touch with this area of study. Who says that all New Testament scholars believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? Moreover, you seem to think that they’re all Christians; which betrays your ignorance. Many of them are secular. Additionally, Biblical inerrancy has nothing to do with what we’re talking about; it’s not even a doctrine that many Christians hold. One doesn’t even have to view the New Testament documents (namely, the gospels and Paul’s letters) as being divinely inspired, rather, one can examine them as merely Greco Roman documents handed down to us in the first century. It is on this basis that ancient historians and New Testament scholars have determined what I mentioned. Virtually all experts in those disciplines agree on the minimal facts pertaining to the historical Jesus. Your denial of Jesus’ crucifixion makes you an outlier, at odds with *mainstream* academia on this event. It is one of the most solid facts of ancient history. In fact, it is the Quran’s denial of said event, along with its single authorship - six centuries after the fact - that make it (the Quran) historically indefensible.

Yes and evidence for it is red riding hood and the grandmother. Not to mention that the grandmother's house is a real place a house in any wood.

like nuclear waste and cockroaches, yeah. Similarly not likely to go away anytime soon, even if he should croak it today...

To be honest, I have only heard of him through atheist response videos. I barely knew he ever was a thing.

Do you know what would be compelling evidence that jesus was a real person? Contemporary reports of his life, wake me if anyone ever finds any.

I saw him! He was on The Walking Dead!

@itsasin1969, writes _"Not too long ago people like us never had the balls to say that out loud."_ Not too long ago they would kill you for saying that. In fact in some parts of the world they'll kill you for saying that (i.e. their religion is not true) now.

Here is Part One of Craig’s response to this video: www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/a-youtube-response-to-the-resurrection-part-one/

@@MojoPin1983 This is the second or third time you post this are you working for WLC or just a fan?

Mud Skipper where can I find that?

@Leah Eschrich - that's from the first gospel : *Matthew 27 : 51 - 53* _And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;_ _And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,_ _And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many._ In the technical parlance, those verses are called: Fuk'n _bullshit._ Even William Lane Craig calls that Biblical claim a "metaphor"! 😂😂😂😂

Paul Gross haha! Thanks for the information. I can’t believe I used to believe this crap🙈

@@lbeschrich Matthew 27:52-53

Thank you, Keith.

Me too

Lol, my day is coming!

Kevin McDougall you’re right she is the reigning champ though

Her phone was updating

For some reason, I like the idea of jesus being only as real as Captain America better.

Prove that Jesus was dead is the Romans, as they would have caught him and killed him this time for good.

ah, but pray tell, my friend. whose socks are we putting in WLC's mouth? do you know someone with sever athlete's foot?

Logic never happens, and that's just murder.

Touche.

I don't live in the USA, so I never get those.