Ehrman-Licona Debate: Can Historians Prove Jesus Rose From The Dead Part 2

This is one thought provoking debate between Bart Ehrman, renowned author, professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Christian apologist and historian, Michael Licona. Can historians really prove Jesus rose from the dead? Watch and decide for yourself.

To view titles by Michael Licona or to purchase the DVD of this debate, please visit:

http://theapologeticsbookstore.com/search.aspx?find=michael+licona

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bart
• Ehrman
• Michael
• Licona
• Jesus
• bible
• religion
• SES
• southern
• evangelical
• seminary
• christianity
• truth
• atheism
• atheist
• agnostic
• agnosticism
• apologetics
• harris
• dawkins
• hitchens
• history

[Marzattacz]

Licona is starting to ramble!

[Austrolibertarian]

Licona claims that miracles happen based on credulity and the fact that people merely claim that a miracle occurs? That was a laughable assertion. I was taking him seriously until that point.

[crucisnh]

I'm sorry but this guy's arguments get weaker and weaker. I strongly disagree that resurrection is the most probable solution. I'd say that it'd much more likely that Jesus wasn't really dead in the first place, and was simply revived. They keep assuming that Jesus was dead, which I think is a flawed assumption because it's just more likely for revival from deep unconsciousness than resurrection.

[DrHowbeit]

@CapsHockey100 I never said that God doesn't exist. Who are you responding to?

[DrHowbeit]

@CapsHockey100 I literally wrote that atheism is not neutral.

[CapsHockey100]

@DrHowbeit Now you are claiming to believe that God doesn't exist, why? The answer certainly cannot be bc you believe all the arguments for theism fail, bc that would only leave you with Agnosticism. The outspoken atheist Kai Nielsen recognizes this: "To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false.... All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists."

[CapsHockey100]

@DrHowbeit Your biggest mistake is that you think Atheism is a neutral claim. This was an argument in the 70s and there is a reason it doesn't exist anymore, it stinks. Even sites like infidel.org or commonsenseatheism discuss how such a view is inappropriate to hold. Atheism is certainly making claims. That you believe God doesn't exist, if you don't know if God exists or not, you should be an agnostic.

[DrHowbeit]

@CapsHockey100 1. I don't believe unicorns exist. Tell me how I'm supposed to show that by doing tests?

2. Sure people can be crucified and die on the cross. That's not evidence for Jesus. It's evidence for crucifixion.

3.Yes, cosmological arguments are philosophical, i.e. theoretical. That's what I said.

4. Atheism isn't neutral. You have to define God before you can n-o-t believe in God. Do you believe in &%#+Y?

[CapsHockey100]

@DrHowbeit The big bang and God link can be made deductively as is shown by the different models of the cosmological argument (Kalaam, etc.). This is a philosophic route.

Different atheists make different assumptions. I.e. some atheist assume that their position is one that we all start with and/or is the neutral position.

[CapsHockey100]

@DrHowbeit Good questions, in the essence of fairness, how can atheism be tested empirically? What philosophical evidence is their for atheism? And what assumptions do theists make?

Briefly:

Jesus' death by crucifixion has been tested several times in crucifixion experiments in which volunteers are tied to wood beams. Also, the Journal of American Medicine wrote an article about Jesus' death as well.