Did Jesus rise from the dead? Mike Licona vs Larry Shapiro with Andy Kind
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 мар 2024
- 🌟📖 This week on Unbelievable, join us as we delve into the age-old question: 'Did it really happen - the Resurrection of Jesus?' 🕊️ We're dissecting the narratives surrounding Jesus’ death and Resurrection with two eminent scholars, each with their own perspectives on this pivotal event that shapes the Christian worldview.
👨🔬 Dr. Mike Licona, a New Testament scholar and expert on the intricate details of Jesus' life and Resurrection, will be examining their historical reliability.
🤔 On the other side, Dr. Larry Shapiro, a sceptic in such matters, will challenge these assertions and offer alternative explanations he deems more plausible.
🔍 The show will also address reconciling discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts - does that strengthen or weaken the arguments for these events?
📜 Moreover, even if we establish the historical reliability of ancient texts, can we apply their teachings to 21st-century life from a philosophical perspective? Dr. Mike Licona will present evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus, probing its relevance to modern life. If Jesus truly conquered death, what does it mean for those who trust in Him?
Don't miss it! 🎙️✨ #ResurrectionDebate #HistoricalReliability #jesuschrist #faith #debate
SOCIAL LINKS
Twitter: / / unbelievablefe
Facebook: / / premierunbelievable
Instagram: / / premierunbelievable
Tik Tok: / / premier.unbelievable
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
One of the best things about this video is that Larry and Mike are good friends. Love it. Exactly how these conversations need to be. Thanks
“Its hard to believe that Noah filled the ark with two of every kind”. lol. Yeah no kidding.
... it's two of every kind, not species. Moses did not part the red sea. Did this man actually read the Bible?
@@Lipjam Genesis 1 features a raqiya that is a solid dome holding up waters, which during the flood, god opens this firmament and lets the waters in. Do you believe in a flat earth with a solid firmament? Did you actually read the bible?
@@Lipjamhow convenient that the definition of kind is so squishy.
Kudos to Larry, Mike and Andy for a very respectful and cordial discussion!
So, Paul had an experience of some kind that dramatically altered his life. Isn't it common to have experiences, such as a vision, that alters people's lives? Mike says that Paul is the best evidence. But whatever Paul experienced happened 3 years after the crucifixion If there really was an ascension, anyone seeing Jesus is not seeing the risen Jesus. Even if there was no resurrection, at some point, if you have a vision, it's just that--a vision. If Jesus dies in the year 30, and if you have a vision in the year 33--you had a vision, not an experience of the risen Jesus.
So, how can we say that Paul experienced the risen Christ? If I have a vision today and it makes me a Christian and dramatically changes my life... did I have an experience of the risen Jesus? Of course not.
Mike also makes a big deal about just one person. Remember, he says that Paul is the best witness to the resurrection. But Paul is just one guy. So his best evidence is just one guy--who didn't even see the risen Jesus.
Paul didnt just have a vision. There was a light that impacted those with him. He conversed with Jesus. He was struck blind. Jesus later spoke to Ananias and sent him to pray for Paul, restoring his vision. After that, Jesus kept guiding Paul and used him dramatically to make thousands of converts and perform a few miracles of his own. Paul never wavered in his faith and died for his faith. It was not just a vision.
@@rustys5111 That's the extrapolated story for which there is no credible documentation, but why would a rational person accept it? What does "a light" mean? Did he become luminescent? Can you provide credible evidence that Paul died for his faith, let alone that it never wavered?
It wasn't just some experience, context is important.
Saul's (later Paul) was a serious persecutor of the church. For this man to suddenly become the biggest supporter of the faith with no other credible explanation given all the other evidence/facts surrounding the death and supposed resurrection of Jesus lends strong evidence to his experience being true and Jesus' resurrection by default being true.
Also, the vision was confirmed with the specific signs and confirmed by Ananias healing his blindness and his his engagement with others disciples
@@TheWriteAnt No, the substance of the vision was never confirmed by anything at all. A zombie event is not in any way supported by either hysterical blindness nor the pangs of conscience. There are abundant credible explanations for Paul's psychological transformation that don't require zombie events.
@@TheWriteAnt No, the substance of the vision was never confirmed by anything at all. A zombie event is not in any way supported by either hysterical blindness nor the pangs of conscience. There are abundant credible explanations for Paul's psychological transformation that don't require zombie events.
Literally ANY natural explanation is more probable than a supernatural one. Paulogia has a pretty good hypothesis for how the apostles came to believe Jesus was raised from the dead without appealing to the supernatural. Highly recommended.
youre only referring to 'more probable' based on a naturalistic view of the universe and life. If you simply refuse to accept the possibility of anything beyond that, then by definition any other explanation is more probable because you give the possibility of a supernatural explanation a probability of 0! It is a non-argument.
@@PC-vg8vn you are correct that I do not give much credence to supernatural events (especially events written down decades later by people who were not eye witnesses of the event). That being said, the probability of an event should comport with one’s background knowledge, and as bodily resurrection is essentially impossible, then yes - I give it a probability of nearly 0.
He appeals to Peter having a grief hallucination, and then this spreading to the rest of the disciples and James. Convincing someone that a person is risen from the dead, or is still actually alive, isn't a feature of grief hallucinations that people writing on the subject even mention. So it's extremely rare, if it happens at all. But then transferring that belief to the rest of the disciples from Peter multiplies the problem even further - I doubt there is any evidence of a grief hallucination ever doing that. So our background knowledge renders the probability of Paulogia's hypothesis nearly zero as well.
@@brenthardaway3704 grief hallucinations are actually pretty common. 30-60% of people who’ve lost a love one report having them. Tack on some cognitive dissonance among the remaining disciples and it would be rather easy to convince them that Jesus rose from the dead. Resurrection wasn’t exactly rare in ancient Greco Roman cultures.
Just look at contemporary doomsday cults. What do you think happens when the world does not end as their “prophet” predicted?
With that background knowledge, it seems much more probable than bodily resurrection.
@@brenthardaway3704 Why isn't the attempt to convince others of a grief-induced delusion a feature of grief? What is you expertise on the subject or what source material do you support your claim with? Substantiate that it's rare and offer a metric for that evaluation. But then persuading other to participate in a cultish belief is not rare at all, especially those predisposed to believe. I doubt you have any evidence to support your idiosyncratic doubts. So my background knowledge does nothing to confirm Paul's claims or yours, but I have seen multiple examples of his thoroughness and intellectual integrity, and he always substantiates his claims in my experience. You seem to just be recklessly asserting out of desperate confirmation bias.
I m stunned by a stupid statement at min 52. "The Concept of science is exclusive to Christian civilization."
It means that the very concept of modern science came from the Christian approach to life: trying to understand God and his creation is what led to the existence of the scientific method. It doesn't mean that science belongs to Christians, that would be stupid for sure.
😂😂😂😂
It's a fake statement
In fact it's so wrong to say such
Science have nothing to do with Christianity
Shapiros strategy went out the window as soon as Licona admitted believing in witches 🤣
49:37 "ALL of them?" Where is he getting the idea that ALL the disciples were severely persecuted for their faith? Or more importantly, for their belief in he resurrection?
tradition.
Early Church historical documents.
@@CCiPencil what documents?
@@docbauk3643 various writings of the early church fathers.
@@CCiPencil can you please be more specific. That is just fluff added to the same words that spurred my question in the first place. What are the names of these early church leaders saying all the disciples were severely persecuted and where can I find and read their writings stating such. Just trying to verify things that all.
The host did really well. The debate was kind of a dud though.
1:12:00 🙋🏾♂️ Prophecy - Psalm
The assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One *to see corruption*
How do they explain the similarity's of the Jesus story with that of Mithra and Osirus, Isis and Horus? Also the story of Jesus immaculate conception being similar to numerous other virgin births?
I'd have to go with Larry's reasoning on this one.
The more one comes up with explanations other than the explanation the original disciples gave, the more crazier and implausible he sounds.
The more zombie worshipers attempt to make a zombie event credible the crazier and more batshit they seem.
Honestly all of his explanations were more plausible than, a god came into the picture and raised him from the dead but you can’t see him because he levitated into the sky?
A common apologetics argument that always astonishes me is Caesar and the Rubicon. Essentially what he is saying is that evidence for Caesar crossing the Rubicon is scant and we believe that, so why shouldn't we believe the scant evidence about Jesus resurrection- and then devote our lives and stake our salvation on that scant evidence. You know what? Caesar may have crossed (and it's possible he didn't), but I wouldn't dedicate my life to believing it.
at this point, I missed Mike mentioning that the historical evidence that we have for the resurrection of Jesus is by far higher than the things happening around Caesar
have here an overview of a variety of antique historical writings; e.g. Caesar (as an author writing during 100-44 В.С.; from A.D. 900 (i.e.1000 years later) we have the earliest copies, number of copies: 10, nothing can be said about their accuracy
New Testament, being written in the 1st Cent. A.D. (A.D. 50-100), earliest copies we have are from the 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. A.D. 130 f.) less than 100 years after they were written, number of copies: 5600 - accuracy: 99.5%
@@SAMBUT You are proving my point. 99.5% accuracy compared to one another but not the originals. Why? We don't have the originals. Nothing can be said about their accuracy compared to the originals.
@senorbb2150 as in this interview, so in your comment - the scant evidence about Caesar is said to be similar to the evidence about Jesus's resurrection - but if you carefully, honestly compare the two categories of data - there is a huge difference between the both, i.e. the NT is far from being scant - it is plentiful - that's why highly sceptical historians take the NT writings seriously as to the historical evidence it provides
@senorbb2150 just for the sake of completeness; a footnote says that in addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000
9:38 I would have liked to hear Larry's answer to this question. I thought it weird that Larry chose not to answer.
10:45 i don't think the interviewer was being sarcastic
Reliable eyewitness testimony does not account for how the gospel resurrection narratives evolve more fantastic over time. We expect consistency when it comes to reliable reports.
In Paul, the nature of the appearances are ambiguous because he does not tell us they occurred before or after Jesus went to heaven.
Mark adds the empty tomb narrative but does not narrate what the appearances were like.
Matthew adds an appearance to two women, followed by an appearance to the Eleven in Galilee. He also adds a great earthquake, descending angel, and dead people coming out of their graves that "appeared to many." How did the other authors miss this stuff?
Luke erases the Galilean appearance tradition and only has Jesus appear near and around Jerusalem. The appearance is an obvious anti-spiritual polemic (Lk. 24:39) which looks apologetically motivated. After this amazing episode, Jesus is witnessed floating to heaven! Then Acts says Jesus appeared for 40 days!
John says Jesus could teleport through locked doors, narrates the Doubting Thomas story and then has another appearance in Galilee involving a miraculous catch of fish.
So are there any other examples of reliable eyewitness testimony evolving this much in detail over time from other sources which come from people who all experienced the same events? I don't think so.
Mike Licona: I think its [our] responsibility... to be able to look at the data and permit the data to challenge what we think is possible.
... so Mike Licona believes that at least some of those found guilty of witchcraft were actual witches? I mean... Wow.
"Extraordinary evidence" is present, but it's not of a kind that is different in terms of the category of the evidence. Rather, it's present in terms of the volume and diversity of the evidence.
For example, It is posited that a human walked on the moon. Our evidence for that extraordinary event (it's certainly not a regular event) is distinct by some categorization, but rather by the volume and diversity of what is actually rather mundane evidence: "So-and-so claims they helped build the rocket. Such-and-such materials are present that allegedly came from the moon." Etc., etc.
Licona keeps going back to what historians agree on (often grossly overstating the case), but he doesn't seem to want to mention that standard history texts don't affirm a zombie event or lend credence to the supernatural.
Mouse ate some seeds tainted by poisonous weed killer and died on the doorstep. :)
But was resurrected by the cat!
Lacona never misses an opportunity to bash islam.
The mouse died from eating a poison mushroom. The body was never described with any injuries, just as dead.
So... poisoned.
I find that detractors to the Resurrection hypothesis rely far, far too heavily upon false equivalencies for their objections to have any weight. I would have loved it if Larry would have attempted to build up the strong-man argument for the resurrection and then attempted to defeat it rather than start by building up a straw-man argument like was done with the opening "dead mouse" analogy.
And analogies themselves have a potential pitfall that one must always be aware of: An analogy can illustrate a point, but it cannot prove a point. This is not to say analogies are inherently flawed or that they cannot contribute towards the proof of a point; it's simply to say that they must not be mis-applied as though they in themselves can be a "whole proof". Analogies help us understand, which is their strong point. Misused, however, an analogy can detract from understanding, and that happens most when some false equivalency is blended into the analogy.
So, in summary, when making an analogy, the limits of the analogy's effectiveness must be measured by applying tests of equivalency. The greater the false equivalencies, the poorer the analogy must be regarded as an argument.
And in regard to false equivalencies, we must be careful about analogies to modern-day "conspiracy theories" or other modern situations. Our power to fabricate and promulgate lies that others believe is, today, far more than what was possible earlier in history. So, the "survivability" of lies about modern events is greater due to the power of our abilities through things like print, communication, travel, etc. (let alone the _internet_).
You never bothered to explain what is false about the equivalency.
So basically this entire debate rest on if God exists essentially lol, because if God does exist then I think the best explanation would be the resurrection.
Sure. So evidence for god? None. Ok then
@dallas1891 What?! There is tons of evidence lol, I think you are conflating evidence with proof
Will we ever find a reliable witness? Why would Larry discredit the eyewitness reports to prove his hypothesis?
What eyewitness reports are you talking about?
So, Larry, looking at your Sally & the Dinosaur claim (timestamp ~ 58:00), how does your calculation of probability change when you add in another self-proclaimed witness? Let's make that witness Sally's teacher - with a degree in Biology and another degree in Education. And let's do another thing. Let's threaten Sally with losing her privileges regarding her upcoming birthday; if she persists in this story, we're going to cancel her birthday celebration (she's turning 8). If she still persists after that punishment, then we're going to ground her for a month.
Again, your analogy helps illustrate the point you are making, but it begins to break down when we start testing its equivalency to the data points we're looking at regarding the witnesses in our case.
Wouldn't you expect God to make it a lot more obvious if Jesus had risen from the dead?
Not unless there were good reasons for not making things so obvious...i like your thinking though...
Especially when 80% of humans are currently hell bound due to lack of evidence!!!
@@In_Paradiso58 doesn't he want us to know he exists in the bible? Your response is confusing biblically.
@@In_Paradiso58 Mysterious Ways ™
Like how?
If one writes the truth, one must trash it as soon as possible.
Where's Justin Bryley?
He stopped working for Premier Christianity months ago or a year ago
@@wilsonian4236 Wow! Thanks!
The saints of the church of Jesus christ of latter day saints were persecuted unto death including Joseph and Hyrum Smith for their testimonies which they said were true..
The belief in witches really threw this guy. 😂😂 Talk about an “oh really!?” moment. I can kinda see it in Mike’s eyes that he might have been a witch accuser. Sorry, maybe just the lighting.
Mike's -non sequitur- minimal facts argument in short:
1. Someone who persecuted Christians later became a Christian
2. Bunch of Jesus' fanatical followers convinced themselves that Jesus rose from the dead and sometimes risked their lives for this belief
3. The vast majority of New Testament scholars believe that Jesus was crucified
Based on all above, the best explanation is a supernatural zombie flying into Heaven with two white angels.
Exactly - Mike listed the things most critical New Testament scholars agree on because most of things they agree on are entirely plausible...then he makes this gigantic leap to, "therefore Jesus was raised from the dead". How Mike who is clearly an intelligent, educated person can't see the issue with his reasoning - and I think you were right to call it a non sequitur - is beyond me.
@@RLBaysYeah, what's even worse in my opinion is that Mike and every other apologist in the "minimal facts" camp (Gary Habermas, Lydia McGrew, etc) don't apply their own methods to miracle claims outside of their own religion.
@@betsalprince It was fascinating to see how easily (and correctly) Mike torpedoed Larry's "Alien's zapped the mouse" hypothesis, while he maintains just an absolute blind spot to the same sorts of outlandish claims found in his faith tradition.
He is risen, Indeed!
I'm sorry but after watching Lacona talk about ouija boards and floating trash can lids for almost two hours while being taught basic logic.... I just can't see how anyone can take him seriously 🤷♂️
Your point is noted, but some may have not heard him speak before and so they will get a chance to make their own minds up, as it could be you have ulterior motives for dismissing him...Av a good day...
@@In_Paradiso58 Not saying others can't make up their own minds. I'm pointing out that there are serious thinkers they could bring in and yet they decided on a guy that knows nothing about basic logic or critical thinking. I am not saying that no apologists are worth listening to. Saying that we should be hearing from those ones. Be less sensitive man.
@@49perfectss Ok, i accept your point, but i've seen similar tactics where people come on before the talk has even been given and try to undermine one of the individuals, usually the theist, for clear reasons...
@@In_Paradiso58 Oh I am not saying that people can dismiss someone for personal reasons to be clear! I am also saying that I am obviously not doing that when this guy literally believes that SECOND HAND ghost stories and ouija boards prove a god exists. Not even exaggerating go watch his debate with Matt Dillahunty. Silliest thing I have ever seen.
What? Where is any evidence?
lol
Do a little homework. People have been discussing this topic and evidence for 2000 years. Thousands of books and articles have covered this.
@@rustys5111 and yet you provided none...
Mike stated it clearly: written testimony (bible) is all there is.
Ap Paul testified he met Peter and Jesus’ brother James, who both believed Jesus was raised. Gospels are anonymous so would be dismissed in court.
- and they did not believe the scripture that H e w o uld rise a g a i n
Nooo he did not......
: and they did not believe the scriptures that H e w o uld rise a g a i n
“If god exists and did these miracles, then that explains it.”??? Well then, wooptydoo 👍👍
Come on, I am ready to be convinced that a guy rose from the dead because an old book said that some people saw him I guess.
Do you believe the account of the Battle of Cannae? One of my favorite battles BC. Hannibal Barca gave ground and did a double envelope. First time in history ever. The result was what gave way to our modern word “annihilation”. So just coz “some people” saw that…should we believe it’s true?
@@alexreid4131 Well it depends on many things, but most importantly, does it defy the laws of physics?
@@nqkoi159 ok. But apart from the question about the laws of physics can you at least as a first step answer my initial question about the battle of Cannae and whether we can believe that account based on some “book”?
@@alexreid4131I don't know anything about that battle or in what book it is, so I cannot comment on that. But maybe there are certain things that we should believe because there are in a certain book. I guess if the author is trustworthy and the information makes sense. But for impossible things it is completely different story.
@@nqkoi159 ok well thanks for being honest. Maybe worth your while digging into that battle. Multiple observers recorded what happened during the Battle of Cannae. What took place was seemingly impossible…but it happened. Generals throughout history and even to today still study the double envelope that Hannibal Barca used in that battle. It had never been done before. And the Roman army was completely and utterly annihilated. Not destroyed…annihilated. And we get that from “some books” and “observers”. So there’s a precedent there for written history recording things that previously were considered impossible. That’s all I’m saying. But, yes, for someone to be raised from the dead requires something literally miraculous. But that being observed and recorded does not make it ridiculous. Rather, it makes it something to be investigated and not dismissed out of hand. But if that person was indeed raised from the dead then that makes demands of my life. It makes demands of your life. And think that’s where the rub comes. Someone with command over death is someone we absolutely must listen to. So, worth investigating further.
The fact that Larry was shocked to find out that Mike would possibly believe witchcraft is real showed how little he has engaged with people who are not insulated by a bubble of naturalism.
Or said another way, how often he has engaged with sane people. 😂
Naturalism is an insulated bubble. Well said.
@@jkm9332 Religions are insulated bubbles friend. Show me something supernatural that isn't the product of imagination, and then we can talk about the boundaries of naturalism.
"Everyone who disagrees with me is insane". Another example of the insulated bubble of naturalism on full display.@@RLBays
@@CollinBoSmith if you’re an adult who still believes in monsters then let’s just let reasonable people decide who sounds sane and who doesn’t. 👍😊
Can we leave Kind at home?
Has Andy got some hoovering to do? 😉
Almost always
yes! Amen
No! karmen
Amen and Hallelujah, God is with Us via the Spirit...
@@In_Paradiso58 Hahaha
Naturalism is a closed system. The Physical Universe. Ok. If that's all that exists, ok, the resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth cannot possibly have occurred. Ok. Granted. Let's move on.
If Christianity is false, what makes Judaism Correct ??
Nothing
They are both equally false.
How are the Jews Forgiven if they Reject Jesus Christ??
No one is forgiven in that sense.
The answer on the first question that the second guy was giving was neither yes or no but how could you ask me such thing?....if you know that something is true but you don't want to admit it because it will put your life upside down, you become a philosopher, the position that allows you to elude.
A discussion over the resurrection of Christ Jesus with a Christian and a Agnostic is never going to get off the ground. The discussion over the existence of a creator needs to be ground zero ✅
It's called "biazzaro world"😊
Now notice Larry thinks an unlikely naturalistic explanation would be more likely than the resurrection which he also thinks is really improbable but not for the same reasons.
One is demonstrable and the other isn't. This is good epistemology.
@@49perfectss That's not the point because he was still applying the resurrection under natural laws.
@@adamstewart9052 what demonstrable laws should he apply and how do they work? It would be really silly if you can't answer this and you're actually comparing them...
@@49perfectssAgain, you're assuming the resurrection must be applied under natural law when it's clearly not meant to be a natural normal event.
@@adamstewart9052 lol read better than that. I did not do that. Specifically I ask WHAT laws should be used. How did you discover those laws? What is your answer?
I want reference to a secular historian who verifies that astonished crowds witnessed Jesus' traveling magic show.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? I'm going to go with a very solid "no". Why? Because it's impossible.
When i was deconverting i didn't even make it that far. Hell i didn't make it out of Genesis before i called BS.
That's why we think it was a big deal
@@a.i.l1074 its a story!
@@nathanmckenzie904 a true story
@a.i.l1074 prove it. Prove its possible for someone to walk on water, kill a tree by yelling at it, or any of the other nonsense written in the bible.
Jesus was invented to explain the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD70. So, no, he didn't rise from the dead.
i see, ta for your thoughts...
Luckily Paul was time traveller who could go back and plant the seeds with his letters from the 40s and 50s
@@a.i.l1074 There's no good evidence that Paul's letters date from the 40's and 50's. This is the lie that the church wants you to believe. The truth is that the religion arose in AD70 as a result of the massacre of the Jewish priests by Titus and the dismantling of the Temple which was central to the Jews' religion. Christianity was the religion which filled the vacuum left by the annihilation of Mosaic Judaism.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... Says who? Dawkins and others parrot this without proving this is any kind of law. In the real world, time and chance might result in a wide variety of datasets to support different kinds of claims. There's no guarantee that true things will have a higher quantity of evidence. We might want that to be the case for our own confidence in the claim, but it's not objectively something we can expect of reality.
Perhaps a better statement would be "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for those claims to be convincing to a skeptical person." Extraordinary claims may indeed be true, but one is not likely to believe them unless they are backed up by very strong evidence.
Case in point- I noticed at the end of this video that Licona, the resurrection believer, described the overwhelming evidence that it would take for him to believe in aliens.
Licona’s pen dropping example lol * That’s not a violation of natural laws, it’s a supernatural, eternal being, with magic powers stepping in and bringing someone back from the dead.
No, I’m pretty sure that would be a suspension of natural laws. The cognitive dissonance on full display.