The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Simon Moon]

Look, WLC is a particular problem because he's outed himself as a presuppositionalist multiple times; he's literally said that he will continue to believe in the historical accuracy of the christian bible even if he were to be taken back in time to be an eyewitness to it all not happening. He's said he will continue to believe in spite of all evidence, and has in fact also stated that reason itself should be disregarded where it conflicts with the gospel.

It should be pretty clear why anything that man says, just by dint of these adopted positions, is inherently untrustworthy, and frankly, you shouldn't want those kinds of sentiments to be representative of your argument here either.

You have a link for this, I presume? Or should I just take your word for it? Hey, I'm the first to drop a bad source if it brings my argument into question.

Mark Smith  posed the following scenario to Craig:

Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let’s pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, Mark Smithstill nothing happens. There is no resurrection – Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.

Smith then asked Craig if he would then deny Christianity, having seen with his own eyes that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Smith writes:

He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian.

In 2007, Zachary Moore decided to try again. Craig confirmed that that no evidence could overturn his “inner witness of the Holy Spirit.”