Frank Turek Interviews Mike Licona on Jesus' Resurrection |
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2023
- Do Christians have good historical reasons to put our faith in the resurrection of Jesus? Can we really know what happened 2,000 years ago? No one doubts the works of Alexander the Great, and Julius Caesar, or the history written about them, so what makes the historicity of Jesus so special? And what do non-Christian scholars say about the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus?
Don't miss this special episode of 'I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist,' where Frank Turek and I discuss several essential topics about Jesus and the resurrection.
I had the distinct honor of studying under Dr.Licona at HBU/HCU and was delighted to hear these arguments presented again in a winsome and persuasive yet intellectually honest way! May his tribe increase!
Very cool. God bless
Thanks, Denise. You were an exceptional student and I very much enjoyed having you in the course offerings!
The idea of an impact event. Now THAT was a great analogy and point. That was worth warching this wonderful discussion. Thanks gents, hat off to you.
Thanks!
Thanks, Squatch100!
Christianity is a Historical facts it's Beyond Human invention.
What has the supposed resurrection(which is impossible) got to do withe christianity which consists of what?
You clearly understand nothing whatsoever of whatever it was that christ was trying o teach, of the detail s of which you clearly pignorant. What is a " historical" fact?
You have no idea what an " historical fact is?
No surprises there but hen you are wholly innocent of any sort of intellectual ability or accomplishment are you not?
This is/was so powerful! Well worth the full listen! Thank you for posting/sharing!
It's ironic that Frank brought up President Bush and the baseball pitch. I can't remember if I saw that or not but as they were talking there was one thing that was VERY vivid in my mind and I can remember it like it happened yesterday, And at 65 that's saying a LOT.
There's actually two things now. One just came into my mind and it was the look on the President's face as he sat in that elementary school and it was whispered in his ear that we were under attack. But the thing I thought of first was ""I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"
Who could see and hear that and ever forget it. It's not hard for me to imagine that there were times with Jesus when the same was true.
To what is the so-called resurrection relevant, or what is the syllogism of which the resurrection is a premise?
I
Interesting video. Given what we know is happening with the rewriting of History and the elimination of some aspects of History, how do you supposed historians 200 or more years in the future are gonna be able to piece anything together from this era? When Truth become lies and Lies become truth how could anyone sort that out?
In the present there are too many sources recording. What history are you talking about? Going back and taking down statues of the losing side?
@@michaelbrickley2443 - That's part of it but I think I was referring more to the rewriting of History Books by the Liberals to put in what they want and take out what they don't want.
@@RoyceVanBlaricome well, people must get and keep copies of all important documents, textbooks, etc. extremism on the left or the right end up leading to the same place, authoritarianism
A problem with the allegorical interpretation of the saints rising in Matthew 27 is that it implicates God with deception. Only a morally defective god like Allah could do this. It's also incompatible with the Pauline doctrine of Scriptural inspiration. Scripture is a different genre from ancient secular works. Keep in mind that Mike's just giving an opinion and interpretation of this text, but he'll never be able to prove it. His interpretation also contradicts early patristic commentaries on this passage. Canon 19 of the Council of Trullo (692) states that Christians are not permitted to interpret Scripture contrary to the Church Fathers. I think it was Dostoevsky who said Protestantism leads to atheism.
Bart's analogy of the 2005 State of the Union Address is fallacious. The disciples received the Holy Spirit, and He was the guarantor of their memory and accuracy. Bart completely leaves God out of the picture. Second, as Mike correctly noted, people only heard the State of the Union Address once, but the disciples were with Christ for 3 1/2 years. Third, a person will have better memory retention when emotion is involved. I still remember lots of negative details from events in my life in 1996 and earlier. I remember a lot of details of my mother's death and funeral in 1991. As for tools, the tools of the theologian is Scripture, which is inspired.
Well, it took me quite some time but I finally found it. I would like to hear Frank and/or Mike's explanation of Eze. 14:9 in light of their discussion at the 20min mark. I watched this yesterday and then "just happened" to read Eze.14 last night. I had never seen that before that I recall.
I think 1 Kings chapter 22 (you kinda have to read the whole thing) is a good narrative as an explanation of that text
@@AnUnhappyBusiness - Thanks! I read that not long ago in my daily QT and Bible Reading Plan. So it was familiar as I read it again just now. Pretty sure I see the parallel you are talking about. So, for clarity sake and the sake of others let's look at two verses side-by-side:
"And if the prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel." (Eze 14:9 ESV)
"Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.” (1Ki 22:23 ESV)
So, in the first case you see God specifically taking ownership of deceiving the prophet and in the second case you see Him taking ownership of putting a lying spirit in the mouth of the false prophets. So, how do you parse that out?
@@RoyceVanBlaricome God acts through means. For instance God takes credit for the death of the firstborn in Egypt but technically His angel did it. God takes credit for the plague in David’s reign but again the angel did it, or in Chronicles I believe it actually says Satan did it. Just like Scripture: it is in at least some sense God’s Word and yet men wrote it.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness //God acts through means.//
Not always.
//For instance God takes credit for the death of the firstborn in Egypt but technically His angel did it. God takes credit for the plague in David’s reign but again the angel did it, or in Chronicles I believe it actually says Satan did it.//
I haven't studied this out so I can't speak to it but a quick glance at the passage and a few Commentaries tells me it could be a couple of different things.
//Just like Scripture: it is in at least some sense God’s Word and yet men wrote it.//
At least in some sense? It IS God's Word to me.
@@RoyceVanBlaricome it is to me as well but I had no idea where you were coming from, skeptic or otherwise
Jesus told the disciples, they would remember everything important that He said or did. It's in the Bible. Jesus made their memories perfect. People really should read their Bible.
I know a flat earther that claims we can’t know anything about anything at all. She is so completely skeptical about everything when it comes to history, science, the news. I don’t know how to even talk to someone as unreasonable as her.
I find the shroud of Turin to be, well, intriguing, if not persuasive.
Well, as long as you don't commit the fallacy of assuming what's reasonable for you to believe dictates what's reasonable for somebody else to believe.
The shroud has been utterly debunked dozens of times. I was very interested for some time in the shroud and actually read more than one book about it. But the problems are just too huge to think it's anything but a medieval forgery. Maybe it wasn't even meant to be passed along as real, who knows. Stuff happens.
The most obvious reason why it's fake is the anatomy. The person on the shroud isn't a real human and never was. One arm is longer than the other, the head is anatomically wrong, the pose of the body is impossible, etc. Also the image should be distorted much more if that piece of cloth was ever covering a human body. It was most likely made with a bas-relief. It has been successfully duplicated multiple times already.
As Christians we simply have to man up to the fact that there is no proof for our beliefs. Nobody will ever be convinced by any proof whatsoever. If there was proof, religion would become science like physics or biology. That's simply not what faith is or ever was meant to be.
So basically, Mike Licone doesn't believe the Bible. He has a problem with miracles. I don't think Mathew was lying. I think the reason Christianity spread faster than horses could run is because the earthquake happened and the saints came out of their tombs, Jesus rose from the dead, and thousands of people saw it all. Those events left no room for doubt, and so they told everyone, spreading the news from mouth to ear more quickly than any letters could travel.
I am concerned about how Mike always says Jesus, but never (or rarely) uses the term Christ. I think an overemphasis on the name Jesus can diminish his Messiahship and deity. It's important to stress that Christ is risen.
Dr. Gary Habermas just wrote a 5300 pg book on the evidence for Jesus ressurection. Argue with him! It comes down to free will to reject Jesus. So let them suffer for their own sins then. Who cares. I sure don't. They CHOSE.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
There's a problem with Mike's reasoning around to 50min mark. It's called Eisegesis. First, Matthew doesn't mention an eclipse. He simply says there was darkness over the land for 3hrs. Mike is reading that as an eclipse. There are at least two other possibilities. Natural and unnatural.
Secondly, regarding that and the raised saints Mike is forgetting about 2nd Tim. 3:16 and 2nd Pet. 1:21. if what Mike says is true then it follows that the Holy Spirit let Matthew to fabricate and/or exaggerate actual events for literary purposes. IOW, one might say lie to further his cause. And that does NOT follow.
Yeah totally don’t agree with him in the area you mentioned. Personally I think these raised saints appeared to people, maybe family or what not, and then went on to be with the Lord. I’m kinda tying in a particular explanation of that passage from Paul in Ephesians to get there theologically. But even the disciples thought Jesus was a “ghost” on several occasions and so I see no reason why the appearances of these people would be any different, to whom ever they appeared to. Likely in mind, more than a few people who later became Christians, realized they had had similar experiences around the same time, and that is the kinda theological but naturalistic explanation for that passage. It always seems like a popular passage to debunk but if the disciples thought Jesus was a ghost, why would this have been any different?
@@AnUnhappyBusiness - TBH, I just haven't given it much thought. It would take some time to work thru and it just hasn't been enough of a pressing matter to do so. You ask good questions and what I particularly appreciate and like about your two replies is that it's obvious you have thought thru this things and are looking to the Scriptures for answers.
When I look for answers to these type of things I start by asking a lot of questions. For example, how does your supposition compare to the raising of Lazarus from the dead? Secondly, you say " even the disciples thought Jesus was a “ghost” on several occasions". Yes, but He wasn't? Thirdly, you say "and then went on to be with the Lord". How do you mean? Like they were "caught up" with Jesus during His ascension? There is certainly no mention of the disciples seeing anyone but Jesus ascending into Heaven, Or do you mean they died again and went on to be with the Lord as we do now? And Lazarus probably did.
All that said, the point I'd like to see Mike and Frank address is how they reconcile fabricating a story for literary emphasis with the two passages I cited about Scripture.
@@RoyceVanBlaricome specifically: Lazarus was a resurrection as in a miraculous resuscitation that would have involved bringing dead flesh back to normal life. Same with Jairius’s daughter, although she had only just died. So eventually they died again. The resurrected saints were bodily raised, but with a supernatural resurrection body as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15. This is just my opinion of course. But no one needed to witness their ascension . They likely just disappeared. We need to think properly concerning Jesus’s ascension. He didn’t need to float up in the air and disappear behind a cloud. He could have just vanished if He wanted to. It’s not like He needed to go up to go to heaven. Heaven isn’t up and hidden somewhere in the solar system after all. The Bible speaks of it as up because that’s the language of power and authority. He who sits over the Earth… that kind of thing. But Moses saw the heavenly tabernacle without leaving the mountain. There are plenty of passages that make it clear that it is another plane of existence. Dimension. Whatever. I mean we don’t really know, but there seems to be some clear passages that rule out heaven being spatially located in our cosmos. So the dead saints could just go, whereas Jesus made appearances and also did the whole superman thing to demonstrate visibly to His disciples that He was truly who He said He was, for their benefit. This is all my opinion, but I got most of it from others. For instance this all came up during debates about the Lord’s Supper during the Reformation, and so you’ll actually find a great deal of thought put into at that time.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness //specifically: Lazarus was a resurrection as in a miraculous resuscitation that would have involved bringing dead flesh back to normal life. Same with Jairius’s daughter, although she had only just died. So eventually they died again.//
Agreed. That is obvious from the text.
//The resurrected saints were bodily raised, but with a supernatural resurrection body as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15. This is just my opinion of course.//
Christians are not entitled to their OPINION on spiritual matters. Christians are slaves to a new Master who has commissioned us to be His ambassadors. As such we do not have the liberty or right to our opinion on spiritual matters. ESPECIALLY when those "opinions" are stated as truth claims.
//But no one needed to witness their ascension . They likely just disappeared.//
Why not? The ascension of Jesus was certainly witnessed. I see nothing in Scripture that would support anything different from happening other than what happened to Lazarus and Jairus' daughter.
//We need to think properly concerning Jesus’s ascension.//
Agreed.
//He didn’t need to float up in the air and disappear behind a cloud. He could have just vanished if He wanted to.//
Evidence?
//It’s not like He needed to go up to go to heaven. Heaven isn’t up and hidden somewhere in the solar system after all.// The Bible speaks of it as up because that’s the language of power and authority.//
Evidence? Five different verses in Scripture speak of Heaven as "up" and it's not language of power and authority. Here's a excerpt from from my Bible that I have taken to heart and hold to: "One cannot profitably discuss God's foreknowledge, because it is clearly a part of God's thoughts that are higher than man's (Is. 55:9)." ~ Spiros Zodhiates (excerpted from commentary on Gen. 22:12) I submit that where God has chosen to remain silent so then should His children. Which is why I say Christians should not be giving opinions on spiritual matters.
//He who sits over the Earth… that kind of thing. But Moses saw the heavenly tabernacle without leaving the mountain. There are plenty of passages that make it clear that it is another plane of existence. Dimension.
//Whatever. I mean we don’t really know//
And yet you speak as though you do. And how can we not really know and yet it be clear? That's a contradiction in terms.
//For instance this all came up during debates about the Lord’s Supper during the Reformation, and so you’ll actually find a great deal of thought put into at that time.//
interesting. I love debates precisely for that reason.
@@RoyceVanBlaricome one of the passages that came up repeatedly in the history of the church, against the view that Jesus needed to go bodily “up” somewhere spatially, was Matthew’s account of the stone being rolled away but then Jesus was already out of the tomb, therefore the rolling away of the stone was to prove he wasn’t there, but unnecessary for him to leave. Similarly, his appearance in the upper room uses the same word Luke uses for the appearance of the angels in Luke 2, which seems to imply an “out of nowhere “ sort of appearance, not that they descended from the clouds. And Elijah prays and the angel armies are revealed to his servant, thus in some sense they were always there. These medieval discussions of metaphysics are where the joke about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin come from.
Dr Licona is great. However, the historical analysis is simply an apologetic. What it really comes down to is simply believing that the Bible is true. That is all it ever comes to. People can try and give natural explanations to the supernatural; yet at the end of the day people either believe in the resurrection or they do not. Believe and be saved. "Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. It is with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial.” Acts 20:36. "Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council, other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: ‘It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day." Acts 24:20-21. It was the issue when Paul preached. It is the issue today. Some like Ehrman don't get past it unfortunately; natural explanations don't get past it because it requires belief. And finally, "Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep." 1 Corinthians 15:12-20. And then we have other resurrection or rapture stories throughout the Bible whether in type or literally: Enoch, Jonah, Elijah come to mind quickly. Could the Bible be clearer? People believe or not, but because it is supernatural all natural evidence falls short.
The reason people disagree on what inference is "most reasonable" from the evidence, is because they harbor different presuppositions. Therefore I prefer to attack Christian presuppositions more than Christian 'evidence'. After all, it is the presupposition that dictates what the evidence can and cannot imply. So to attack another's "presupposition" is to quickly get down to the brass tacks.
@@gregbooker3535 I understand. Yet it is simpler than that. The Bible says what it says. It cannot be clearer. The resurrection is part of the gospel and needs to be believed. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
@@ToddParker Aren't you assuming that something in the bible "applies to us today"?
@@gregbooker3535 I believe the entire Bible applies to us today, unapologetically. The parts that seem not to still do as we learn. That is how reading books works. Your question as a statement however doesn't have an application to our conversation. Are you insinuating yourself that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 doesn't apply to today? If so, you miss the entire point of Christianity as that passage is the best definition of the gospel we have. I am confused as to what you are trying to get on about.
@@ToddParker "Greg Booker I believe the entire Bible applies to us today, unapologetically."
-----------That doesn't decide whether I can possibly be reasonable to hold the viewpoint that the NT authors did not intend anybody past the 2nd century to bother with their teachings. I'm also "unapologetic" about my skepticism...does that hold the least bit of sway over you? Of course not. Perhaps you need to learn the difference between opinion and dogma?
"The parts that seem not to still do as we learn. That is how reading books works. Your question as a statement however doesn't have an application to our conversation. Are you insinuating yourself that 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 doesn't apply to today?"
------No, i'm insinuating that YOU have the burden of proof to show that it DOES apply in the year 2023, and I further insinuate that you cannot demonstrate your premise.
"If so, you miss the entire point of Christianity as that passage is the best definition of the gospel we have."
---------I don't care what Paul said, I only care about how Jesus defined the gospel.
"I am confused as to what you are trying to get on about."
--------Then let me clarify: I maintain that whatever the NT says about the gospel, the NT authors were obviously addressing their originally intended 1st century recipients.
YOU come along 2,000 years later and insist that what they said to their 1st century audiences also "applies to us today" 2,000 y ears after the fact. I deny your premise because I can tell who the intended recipients were, and people living 2,000 years later were never within a thousand miles of the intended recipients.
If you think the NT authors intended an audience any broader than people of the 1st century, that is YOUR claim, for which YOU have the rightful burden. The burden is not on a skeptic to show that the NT "doesn't" apply today. Therefore there is no prima facie presumption that whatever the Apocrypha says, it "applies to us today". There is no prima facie presumption that whatever the NT says "applies to us today".
Therefore, when skeptics of today ignore the NT about as often as they ignore TOBIT, they cannot be rationally classified as unreasonable. Therefore, YOU are the person who is in the wrong, if you insist that today's people are unreasonable to ignore the gospel. We aren't breaking any rules of hermeneutics or historiography by ignoring 1st Maccabees, and we aren't breaking any rules of hermeneutics or historiography by ignoring the New Testament.
Let me know if you require further clarification.
I listen to one of the podcast with this person that’s being interviewed. Please forgive me because I don’t know names, but the one that was previous was in an auditorium, and he was being interviewed with a Muslim, who really knew the word of God, but not spiritually, of course, but I also, not happy with the so-called Christian or whoever he calls himself. He’s ignorant and a waste of time to listen to this podcast anymore. Anybody who reads this you can’t prove anything in the Bible unless you’re born again and then you know and when you know that you know that you know, the truth will set you free. There’s no way to explain it, other than God saved me and he can save you and when, and if you want him to save you, you’ll know to pass it on
Jesus did not rise from the dead. John 7:5
Wrong!
@@peterfloyd2326 Then apparently you missed the point: If Jesus' family didn't believe him back when he was doing miracles, its probably because they saw a few of his miracles and decided they were fake. That makes us reasonable to infer that he couldn't do real miracles. That in turn makes us reasonable to infer that he was a fake messiah, and therefore did not rise from the dead. Please specify what you think is so unreasonable about such inferences. If all you have to say is "wrong!', then consider this my last reply to you.
@@peterfloyd2326 Of course jesus did not rise from the dead because that is *impossible*
However the so-called resurrection is utterly irrelevant to the way of christ for the simple reason that supposed events*After* the destruction of the teacher *cannot possibly be relevant to, or have ant bearing on, what the teacher taught*Before* he was(for himself) destroyed forever but you have *absolutely_no* idea of of what the teaching of christ consisted, hsve you?
*That* you are about to demonstrate as you have illustrated your complete innocence of any soty o intellectual ability or accomplish.
the reason that there*Are_No* christians is ththat there are no being s that have any odea whatsoever what it was that christ was trying to teach, becuse there is no way of discovering what he was trying to teach besus his teaching ewas destroyed for ever when he was(for himself) destroyed foreverand no christians means no christianly thus christianity is self -vidently extinct, because there can be no christians if there are no beings with any idea of what it*means* to be a christian and there is no-one anywhere that has - or could possibly have that knowledge, but you feel free to lie and deceive yourself. Anyone that says that the way of christ has anything whatsoever to do with *believing* anything or saying snything clearly understands nothing of the way of christ.
You have been told lies by those that understand nothing whatsoever of the way of christ just as you understand nothing of the way of christ because there is no way of discovering of what that way consisted, because the way of christ was destroyed forever when christ was (forhimself) destroyed forever and no amount of empty words about that form of dreaming and self-deception that i belief can alter the truth that christianity is extinct. You try repeating " I believe I am a multimilionaire and se if you get any richer or to borrow from the man himself :" Who, by taking thought can add one cubit to his stature? you try ssaying I belief Iam ywo feet taller and se if you get any taller. Jesus would hsve rosred with laughter if you told him that some suppose there to be magic in that for of dreaming and weakness belief, and asked Do the fools not understand that belie is a form of dreaming and thus a weakness?
Fith has *Nothing Whatsoever* yo do with belief.
In fact faith is the *Exact_Opposite of belief, an your pignorance is that you can no more understand that than you can stand on your own shoulders.
The so-called resutrrection has *Absolutely_Nothing* to do with the way of christ with which you are wholly unfamiliar, and chanting empty words about belief cannot alter that fact. There is no magic in words.
You do not hunger and thirst after understanding because you suppose - in your lying self-deception, that you already have it. you are that *Smug*