No good historian disputes the existence of Jesus. And if you can find one somewhere... they would be in the vast minority of such skeptics. As for me, I'm willing to go with what the vast majority of historians (those that have spent many years studying the issue seriously) have concluded.
The vast minority believe that he never existed as a person and was just a fictional character. As far as those who acknowledge his existence, that does not mean that they acknowledge him as the son of God. Most historians who do believe in God will argue that he was, historians of other religions or nonbelievers will argue that he existed but was not the son of God. This provides no evidence to your argument to say that most historians believe he existed as a person as it does not show that the vast majority of historians believe he was the son of God or that anything from the Bible was factual.
In case you haven't noticed... this is what IS ALWAYS DONE with all of ancient history.. .because there is no other alternative to that process. There are no videos or audio or pictures of the ancient past. All any historian has at their disposal are ancient documents.
Other historical events are well documented. There was no photographs or videos of the American Revolution, but there are many documents. We also have other evidence that shows this to be true, such as the fact that the United States exists as a result of the colonies they developed during that time. Historians debate over historical accuracy of more than just the Bible. Arguing what Historians debate over and stating that you will always agree with the majority of them is fine. That suggests to us that you will be likely to deny any rebuttals to your argument that may be in the minority of historians viewpoints. However I don't really foresee this as being a problem.
most people assume he was born/crucified. just like most people used to assume the universe revolved around our little rock.
Aristarchus of Samos was a greek philosopher and an astronomer who first suggested a heliocentric solar system and he went ignored. People believed Ptolemy and Aristotle's geocentric solar system because it made more sense to them and they had no evidence of a heliocentric solar system. 1800 years after Aristarchus proposed this, Copernicus readdressed and published works in favor of a heliocentric solar system. Galileo supported and continued the idea and was prosecuted by the Roman Churches' Inquisition till he died. I say all this to make a point, the reason that no one believed it when Aristarchus of Samos was because there was a lack of evidence that showed it to be true, so people picked what they liked. People wanted the earth to be the center of everything. Once evidence was found to support a heliocentric solar system and after many years of prosecution from the church, we now know that Aristarchus of Samos' heliocentric solar system is correct.
Now let's address the first part of this comment. You say most people think Jesus was born and crucified. While I might argue that, let's go with it. Let's say -EVERYONE- thought he was a real person and he was crucified. This does not mean that everyone thinks that he was born of a virgin, that he was the son of God, that he performed miracles, that he rose from the dead, etc. You are not providing evidence for the fantastic parts of the Bible, such as his resurrection. That's like I can say I have a pet dog who poops gold and then say people believe dogs exist. Pointing out things like this, does not prove his resurrection. It is not like the second example you gave because not everyone believes Jesus to be the son of God (rather because they are a different religion, they are atheist, or whatever). Did everyone always think the world was geocentric? No, but most people did. That was the entire claim. That the earth was in the center of the world. We know how evidence that proves that theory to be wrong. What we don't have is evidence of Jesus' resurrection or any of the other fantastic claims of the Bible. You comparing past theories of planetary orbit does not equate to what you are trying to say. It is just as ridiculous as me trying to equate your claim that Jesus rose from the dead to a dog that poops gold.
I think it can be demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the Resurrection of Christ actually occured in history. And I think William Lane Craig shows this to be true in his numerous debates with highly intelligent atheists and non-believers.
As others have said, William Lane Craig is not the one here making arguments, you are. You provide the arguments that you think prove it occurred and don't just say that others have proved it. If someone was arguing Evolution, they don't just say that someone else has proven it, the provide the arguments for it. Let's see you do the same.
Well... it didn't appear that you were writing to me. But William Lane Craig's line of reasoning employed in his debates with highly intelligent nonbelievers takes care of your particular objections. It is his line of reasoning I am using.
Again, you state the line of reasoning that you believe answers objections. Debates do not work in the sense that someone makes a claim, someone opposes that claim, then the person making the claim expects those who oppose it to go do the work for them. Everyone brings their material to the table so it can be discussed. So stop just mentioning others you feel who have made the argument for you, unless you are going to actually provide what it is they said.
