Response to William Lane Craig – Part 11
Here is my main objection to William Craig’s case for the resurrection of Jesus: It is not possible for a person to rise from the dead until AFTER that person has actually died. Thus, in order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 11
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 7
I have another objection to raise against Luke Johnson’s use of the “method of convergence” to support the reliability of the Gospels or the “historical framework” of the Gospels (emphasis added by me): As I have tried to show, the character of the Gospel narratives does not allow a fully satisfying historical reconstruction of Jesus’ ministry. … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 7
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 6
In Part 4 of this series, we saw that in a table (presented by Johnson in The Real Jesus) listing seventeen different claims about Jesus that are based on the Gospel accounts (and allegedly supported by various other “outsider” and “insider” writings), that about half of those claims were trivial, vacuous, or very vague, so … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 6
Response to William Lane Craig – INDEX
The well-known Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig has read at least two of my posts from 2014 criticizing his case for the resurrection of Jesus, and he responded to some of my objections: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/establishing-the-crucifixion-of-jesus Here are the blog posts of mine that Dr. Craig addresses: ========================================== After discovering (completely by accident) that Dr. Craig had … Response to William Lane Craig – INDEX
Response to William Lane Craig – Part 3
I have criticized William Craig’s case for the resurrection on the grounds that he fails to show that Jesus died on the cross, and that apart from proving this to be a fact, his case for the resurrection of Jesus is a complete failure. Craig’s primary response to this criticism is that the death of … Response to William Lane Craig – Part 3