This episode is taken from the Unbelievable podcast with Justin Brierly in 2011 when Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Michael Licona address the question: Is there good biblical evidence for the resurrection? Dr. Licona’s answer is yes, and he begins the defense of this conclusion by referring to three minimal facts that he says virtually all scholars agree upon: 1) that Jesus died by crucifixion, 2) that after this, his followers had experiences, both individually and in groups, that they believed were appearances of the risen Christ, and 3) that Paul, while he was an enemy of the church, had a similar experience which radically changed his life leading him to become one of the foremost proponents of Christianity. Dr. Ehrman immediately takes issue with this, contending that one is irrelevant and that 2 and 3 make the same point. Ehrman questions whether most scholars agree that there were group experiences, whether oral tradition is reliable, and whether the gospels are reliable due to their differences, especially in the resurrection accounts. Furthermore, he denies that historiographic research methods can be applied to miracles. Licona responds to these issues, and the episode wraps up with the two in a standoff over Ehrman’s statement that the resurrection is not a matter of history but faith.

In this episode, Dr. Stephen Patterson, New Testament professor at Eden Theological Seminary, argues against the bodily resurrection of Jesus, contending that the earliest Christian witness doesn’t presume anything happened to Jesus’ body after his death but that by God’s power, Jesus’ spirit lived on in his followers. In keeping with the conceptualization of resurrection in ancient Judaism, the point of the resurrection narrative was to proclaim the vindication of God’s righteous servant against his enemies, not to declare a physical reality.  In his writings, Patterson claims that Paul had a spiritual resurrection of Jesus in mind and that Mark mentioned an empty tomb but never a physically resurrected Christ. Instead, the later gospel writers added this into their texts, fleshing out the story in line with their worldview, which at that time believed a physical body could rise into the sky, where God lived, to be with him. Dr. Patterson concluded his argument by stating that the ancient statements on Jesus’ bodily resurrection do not comfortably fit our current worldview. However, that is alright because all that Christians must believe in are Jesus’ teachings. Dr. Licona, who began the session with a positive argument for the bodily resurrection based on historical facts and methods, counters Patterson’s claims, citing translation issues and specifics from Paul’s text that refute his opponent’s assertions.

This episode is a 2016 debate held at the University of Tennessee – Chattanooga between Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Shabir Ally, president of the Islamic Information and Dawah Centre International in Toronto, Canada. Dr. Licona presents a case for Jesus’ death by crucifixion and his resurrection, contending that there exists substantial evidence for this but that Islam offers none to the contrary. Dr. Ally argues that Jesus was taken off the cross before he died, placed in the tomb, and then assumed into heaven before he died. Ally bases this on his belief that the gospel’s resurrection narratives show evolution and legendary development, such that the later the gospel was written, the stronger its claims that Jesus died became. He also asserts that the Q source document used by Matthew and Luke and the pre-Markan source used by Mark show that some in the early Christian community believed that Jesus was taken straight into heaven, alive, from the tomb, much as Enoch was.

This episode is a discussion between Dr. Mike Licona and then PhD candidate Laura Robinson on the Capturing Christianity podcast. While both scholars are Christians who claim belief in the resurrection of Jesus, they differ in what they believe can historically be shown about it. Robinson questions the wisdom and validity of applying the historical perspective to this topic as she contends that our evidence is not as strong as Christians claim. Rather than focusing on what happened, this scholar promotes a theological account of the resurrection, interpreting the resurrection narratives after the fact. Licona disagrees, stating that their discussion comes down to the differing approaches of historians and theologians.

On the Risen Jesus podcast today, Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Bart Ehrman join Justin Brierly on his Unbelievable podcast to discuss their faith journeys. Both men experienced crises of faith when their scholarly studies led them to question the inerrancy of the Bible. Though not the cause for his abandonment of the Christian faith, Ehrman says this was the first step in a domino effect that ended in his disbelief in Christ and the Christian God. Licona, on the other hand, has retained in Christ, the Christian God, and the inerrancy of the Bible. How did they reach these different conclusions?

Dr. Matthew McCormick, a philosophy professor at California State University, Sacramento, doesn’t believe that there is satisfactory historical evidence to support the idea that Jesus rose from the dead. This is because humans have a high error rate when making claims about the supernatural. Therefore, those who reported Jesus’ post-death appearances were likely wrong. Furthermore, if an all-powerful God wanted people to believe this claim, why didn’t he provide more substantial evidence for us? Why didn’t he do better? In a 2016 debate at Sacramento State University, Dr. Michael Licona faces these contentions from McCormick, arguing that evidence strongly supports theism over atheism and that the existing historical data suggests that Jesus did rise from the death. Which case do you think is better?

In this episode, frequent debate opponents Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Bart Ehrman face off on the historical reliability of the gospels. Held in 2018 at Kennesaw State University, Dr. Licona begins by defining historical reliability as related to the gospels, stating that the gospels, ancient biographies, got things right when focusing on the larger biographical narrative of Jesus. The specifics of the various stories may differ between books, but that is due to the literary conventions of the genre at that time. Licona then lists six criteria for historical reliability, including:

1. the author’s intent to be accurate,
2. a good choice of sources,
3. a good use of sources,
4. the author and sources being capable of accurate reporting,
5. numerous details being verifiable
6. a small percentage of more information being known to be false.

Dr. Ehrman’s contention is summed up in his claim that he doesn’t think the gospels are accurate in many of the things they state regarding Jesus. He then focuses on examples that he concludes are contradictions and mistakes in the gospels' birth, ministry, and death and resurrection narratives.

In this episode, frequent debate opponents Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Bart Ehrman face off on the historical reliability of the gospels. Held in 2018 at Kennesaw State University, Dr. Licona begins by defining historical reliability as related to the gospels, stating that the gospels, ancient biographies, got things right when focusing on the larger biographical narrative of Jesus. The specifics of the various stories may differ between books, but that is due to the literary conventions of the genre at that time. Licona then lists six criteria for historical reliability, including:

1. the author’s intent to be accurate,
2. a good choice of sources,
3. a good use of sources,
4. the author and sources being capable of accurate reporting,
5. numerous details being verifiable
6. a small percentage of more information being known to be false.

Dr. Ehrman’s contention is summed up in his claim that he doesn’t think the gospels are accurate in many of the things they state regarding Jesus. He then focuses on examples that he concludes are contradictions and mistakes in the gospels' birth, ministry, and death and resurrection narratives.

Dr. Shane Pucket was ranked the 32nd best debater in the world in 2012. That year, he faced off against Dr. Michael Licona at Monroe Baptist Church in Louisianna on whether Jesus rose from the dead. Licona argued the affirmative case using the historical method to examine facts derived from the writings of Paul, especially 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Dr. Pucket’s negative case centered on the gospels, the unreliability of oral tradition, upon which the gospels are based, and the existence of other Jesus-like figures in the world with similar life details such as virgin birth and rising from the dead. In the back and forth after the scholars presented their original cases, Dr. Licona pointed out the red-herring nature of Pucket’s use of the gospels and took his claims regarding oral tradition and other Jesus-like figures head-on. As the debate continued, it appeared that underlying Pucket’s objections to the historicity of the resurrection were philosophical commitments that miracles cannot happen and that theology is the realm of the supernatural and, therefore, cannot be studied by disciplines like history, mathematics, and science which deal with the physical world.

In 2004, Islamic scholar Dr. Shabir Ally and Dr. Mike Licona met at Regent University to debate the physical resurrection of Jesus. Both cases, a lively Q&A between the scholars and an audience Q&A make up this week’s episode. Dr. Licona presents a positive case for Jesus’ resurrection based on three nearly universally agreed-upon facts about Jesus’ death and resurrection taken from the earliest historical sources. Dr. Ally presents the negative, citing Muslim beliefs about God’s forgiveness and the testimony of the Quran on Jesus’ crucifixion, as well as varying gospel testimony, which he believes changed over time to support the idea that Jesus died on the cross and was later bodily raised. Ally claims that, like Mel Gibson, the producer of the movie The Last Temptation of Christ, the gospel writers looked at what they thought the Old Testament writings said would happen to Jesus and then wrote what they thought should have occurred based upon this. Licona, conceding gospel difficulties for the sake of the discussion only, returns to his earlier evidence, which Ally fails to address. Dr. Licona remarks that they are fighting on two different hills and tensions rise over the presentation of source evidence.