William Craig is arguably the most influential and most convinving evangelical christian debater around today, and has many credentials to do with analysing the historical Jesus.
How would an intelligent person such as himself come to the conclusion that Jesus is the son of God when atheists say there is little evidence concerning jesus?
I am forced to conclude that "convinving" was a typo of "conniving".
Seriously though, how is he convincing? His best argument is based on two flawed premises. I suppose he's convincing if you don't understand logic and allow him to get away with stating unknowns as absolute truths.
"How would an intelligent person such as himself come to the conclusion that Jesus is the son of God when atheists say there is little evidence concerning jesus?"
If I accept your premises that WLC is intelligent and has acceptable credentials regarding the historicity of Jesus, then I would still answer your question so: presuppositional bias.
WLC himself has stated that he knows "Christianity is true, wholly apart from the evidence."
He also stated that even if the evidence "turned against" Christianity, he would still believe it to be true.
So, how would he come to the conclusion that Jesus is the son of God? He starts with that assumption.
If it were only the atheists that claimed there was no evidence of a historical Jesus that wouldn't mean much because they are not unbiased. What counts is the unbiased researchers who applied the most current methodologies, technology and scholarship to the question did a historical Jesus even exist? Unbiased historians, scientists and research investigators have never found any evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus. People who study ancient civilizations and religions have found plenty of evidence that the Jesus story was copied from existing myths of other divine sons or savior gods of the ancient pagan world. There are gaps in the Jesus story large enough to drive a truck through, and remarkable similarities to pagan ideas and philosophies that preceded Christianity. Not a single historian mentions the resurrection until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and then only Christians. Of the anonymous Gospel authors, only "Luke" even claims to be writing history. No one knows who wrote the Gospels; the authors identities are completely unknown, and there are no originals, the evidence for a historical Jesus simply does not hold up to investigation. Jesus never wrote anything, and there are no accounts of his life or death from any historians of that day. Not withstanding, there are well-known forgeries by Church fathers. There are no records that support the existence of a historical Jesus; it is entirely missing in everything but the Gospels and Acts and until the circulation of those documents toward the middle of the second century (Acts not being written until that time). These documents represent a very narrow portion of the historical record.
To simply state that William Lane Craig is a biased Biblical historian does not question the historicity of Jesus -- that is what anyone expects. The fact is that there have been critics who have disputed Christian claims and called events from the Gospel stories into question from the time they started to circulate them. And since at least the 18th century a growing number of historians have raised serious doubts about the historicity of Jesus.
To infer that only atheists say there is no evidence is a distortion of the actual situation. No Biblical Scholar of any note would claim that there is credible evidence of a historical Jesus. There are plenty of unbiased reports with that information. No conclusion can be drawn from a biased account from someone like William Lane Craig who is an apologist with only Philosophy of Religion and theological credentials.
So there you have it -- dipstick -- your level is so low that it didn't register.
Follow us on:
ACA members! It's time to renew your ACA membership. You can do so online if you log in and then click here or check your e-mail for alternate instructions. Thanks for supporting the ACA.