Ehrman-Licona Debate: Can Historians Prove Jesus Rose From The Dead Part 4

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
• SES
• apologetics
• southern
• evangelical
• seminary
• truth
• christianity
• bible
• God
• religion
• atheist
• atheism
• agnostic
• agnosticism
• harris
• hitchens
• dawkins
• blasphemy
• challenge

[bloodties1]

Bart Ehrman totally Bitch-slapped Licona in this "debate".

[wlbarbo]

Notice how Part 1 of this series has more than 2.5 times the number of viewers as Part 4? They're missing the best part!

[crucisnh]

@StAugustine79 It doesn't matter what scenario one comes up with as an alternative, it will always be more likely than an actual resurrection. His body could have been missing from the tomb because certain Jews may have thought that he didn't deserve such a nice tomb and decided to remove it and dump it in a pauper's grave.  Whatever hokey scenario one could create would be more likely than an actual resurrection.

[StAugustine79]

@crucisnh That is just an assertion for you to say that the resurrection will "never" be the most likely explanation. Swoon theory certainly does not align with the evidence. We do know how the Romans crucified people from both textual and archaeological evidence. Moreover, if you are not going to accept testimony with a 30-40 year gap, then you might as well not trust the biographies of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Herodotus' Histories, and Tacitus' Annals.

[crucisnh]

@StAugustine79 You don't know for a fact that the story about the spear is true. You don't know any of those points is true. You have a single story which was written about 30-40 years after the fact. And quite frankly, I don't trust that level of detail after such a long interval between the events and the writing of the account.

Resurrection will NEVER be the "most likely" explanation.

[StAugustine79]

@crucisnh That is an absurd assertion. The Romans were experts in making sure people died in capital punishment. They pierced Jesus' side, driving a spear through his heart. I am sure he died. By the time he reached the cross his body was already flayed and he was bleeding profusely, suffering from hypovolemic shock. Furthermore, the emergence of the early church in light of the circumstances of the death of their leader, would posit resurrection as the most likely explanation.

[crucisnh]

@Abz90L I've heard this claim before, and even seen a documentary or 2 here on YT about it. However, I'm not sure if there's any concrete proof. And even if the local govt allowed the body to be dug up from the supposed grave (highly unlikely of course), it's not like there's any way I know of to prove it actually was Jesus (if the body hadn't totally decomposed, that is).

[crucisnh]

I disagree with Licona's claim that resurrection was the most likely explanation. I think that the best explanation is to assert that Jesus wasn't really dead and that he was "merely" revived from unconscious, death-like state, which would *appear* like resurrection.

[ugod987]

the sun ressrurects every morning and sets in the evening ala sunset. Horus of egypt.

[ugod987]

annunakki nephlim, giants, eloheim, what about that address this this dates 450,000 years ago.

[CapsHockey100]

@ugod987 What about near death experiences :) Someone who is on the way to the morgue and then pops up in the sheet and scares the nurse certainly would disagree.

[ugod987]

nobody comes back when you are dead