The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Randy Carson]

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.

Several: Here's one with references to Craig's own books.  Here's Craig himself, asserting that "god exists because I know god exists, so screw your evidence!" is a reasonable justification for belief.

It's not that WLC is a bad source, it's that he's not even a source at all: he's just a bilge pump spewing christian propaganda wrapped in ten dollar words.

In the article to which you linked, Craig wrote:

As to your point about my defense of the witness of the Spirit undermining my apologetic efforts, I have no choice but to hold to the religious epistemology that I think is true, whatever the consequences. Ironically, I have in my published work and debates offered a more robust natural theology and presentation of Christian evidences than most self-described evidentialists. I find it odd that because I also believe that there is a self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit, that fact is thought to somehow undermine the arguments and evidence I present. I suspect that people are just reacting emotionally to my claims about the witness of the Spirit rather than making the effort to engage my arguments in detail premise by premise.

I understand that we will disagree on this point, but I don't find Craig's statements to be as damning as you do, and the last line is particulary on target.

To illustrate, just as Craig says people are finding his "witness of the Spirit" statement to be an excuse to not deal with his philosophical arguments, so in like manner, you will now use my quotation of WLC as an excuse to avoid actually engaging the arguments I make since merely by association I "have lost all credibility."

Anyone taking that tack was already looking for an excuse to dismiss me without engaging me.

---

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.”

I did read that elsewhere. Meh.

---

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.

So, now that Esquilax and I have both posted a video and quotes from WLC showing himself to be an intellectually dishonest dirtbag, will you still continue to use him as a reference?

Let's see how intellectually honest you are.

I probably will. Primarily because while you do not like his presuppositions, you have not formally defeated his arguments. And if I asked to be "honest", I don't think that you can.

---

That aside, 1 Corinthians 15 is almost certainly a proto-creed of the early church which Paul memorized while in Jerusalem.

[Verse replaced with original quotation from the NIV. -Jorm]

Why did you change the verse?

Who did he receive this from? When? This is the language of the Pharisees and of rabbinic schools. Paul was a trained scholar under Gamaliel, and he conveys this creed from memory just as he had previously learned and memorized the tenets of Judaism. This dates the core message of the resurrection to a very early point.

It reads like an interpolation to me.  If this is the entirety upon which you're resting an early composition of the gospels, I'm afraid that reed won't hold the weight.  

The entirety. Of course not. It is simply one of many pieces of evidence that point to a probable conclusion.

Acts 10:40-41: "This one God did raise up the third day, and gave him to become manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses, to those having been chosen before by God -- to us who did eat with [him], and did drink with him, after his rising out of the dead;"

That's Luke, the self-same one you claim was a companion of Paul and who recorded an "orderly account."

Well, technically, it's Peter quoted by Luke:

34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

39 “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, 40 but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41 He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message.

---

I will, but not tonight. 

One more question though: Are supernatural things possible?

No they are not.

How do you know this?