I think this debate proves that Dr. Mike Licona knows what he is talking about.

I hope you're joking 😬😬😬

It's crazy how many 'academics' claim there is evidence for a historic jesus. It is clearly not the case.

With theory’s he has no bases.

Authoritative and explanatory does not equal good evidence.

@@Nameless-pt6oj Carrier had all the good evidence on his side - Licona merely had the usual old tired claims that have been disputed and refuted. He relied on faith not truth.

@@ManxThor Licona's historical methodology has been disputed, yes, but refuted? Not even close. Not by a long shot. I suppose that is wishful thinking on the part of most Christ rejectors.

@@CCCBeaumont That's ironic, claiming atheists are guilty of wishful thinking! You're claiming knowledge that your god exists, are you? Of course not, you have faith - THAT'S wishful thinking!

Carrier's conclusions are against practically every scholar alive. The Christ myth theory has been given like 150 years to gain traction. It just hasn't convinced experts. Sorry.

@@luthlexor123 STOP listening to fundamentalists

@@wozo9210 I don't listen to fundamentalists. What are you talking about. Do you not realise that Carrier is the fundamentalist here? The one who blindly ignores academic consensus, hand waves away all critiques, insults all who disagree with him, just to push a personal agenda?

​@@luthlexor123 But in this video Carrier rather boringly accepts the consensus and argues that the post crucifiction appearances were likely dreams/visions/hallucinations of a recently deceased historical Jesus. Rather than a miracle. Easy win for the boy, but I prefer his more recent work.

@@retrocool We all know his true position though. He thinks there was no Jesus. The mental gymnastics he has to pull off is insane. He also has to completely misrepresent sources. Ever heard of the infamous David cosmic sperm debacle? It's probably Carrier's most famous blunder b

True

Resurrection is virtually impossible. There's zero empirical cases of resurrection. No prior evidence, and a wise man proportions his beliefs to the evidence. No evidence, no belief.

Calling it a debate is generous when fantasyland vocabulary is allowed.

why does the thumbs up feature on @lfl5982's post not react when clicked. Is someone interfering with this democratic process?

I think you just need to search "Car Crash religious debates" and you will find them :-) The ones against Bart Ehrman and the one with Matt Dillahunty are examples but I admire him to put them on his channel and accept some derogatory comments from the likes of myself.

There is historical evidence for it

@@endygonewild2899 really there is historic evidence for Jesus tomb?

​@@endygonewild2899where ? You have a made up guy not mentioned anywhere else ever, donating a tomb from a town that literally translates to the good disciple town 😅. It's mythology at its finest. There isn't even a single other historical example of a body from a crucifixion being placed in a tomb. They were left up there to rot and then thrown in a pit.

@@creatinechris There is historical evidence. They found the bones of Jesus in the Talpiot family tomb. From the same tomb the famous James ossuary has been stolen with the inscreption: James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. The consensus opionion on th James ossuary today us that it is the authentic ossuary of the historical brother of Jesus. Even apologist agree the James ossuary is authentic.

​@@yozkopf3000 The Talpiot Tomb being evidence for Jesus' bones is rejected by the majority of experts. There is no _consensus_ on the James ossuary but rather it's indeterminant, but I'm happy to grant James tomb is authentic. Doesn't provide evidence that Jesus (low class Galilean) would have been afforded a tomb (especially given a crucified death).

Asumptions of morality ; no standard.

general comments that doesn’t mean murder them are you kidding me

general comments Numbers 3:12 12 “Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine, Was he now saying kill all of the Levite’s sorry you need to read the whole counsel of God and not cherry pic verses and twist them

general comments sorry there is no comparison between the Bible and Koran.

@R.J.J- El ganador Why are the proclamations in your book valid, and a rational evaluation of how our actions affect our well being and the wellbeing of others invalid? Because my holy book says so makes it valid? What about Islamic moral law. Is that valid as well. I really want clarification because I hear this argument but never a justification. I don't think claiming to believe it makes it true and you can't say it's because you disagree with the laws because then you would have no basis to disagree just like I assume you think others have no basis to disagree with you. It's confusing.

Carrier is a strong atheist Which means he claim to know that God do not and can't exist He is metaphysical naturalist

@@Hhjhfu247 he not atheists you can’t give a spiritual account argument and claim atheists’ he a skeptic he not sure himself where some off the spiritual idea come from if you taking spiritual you speaking god like

You should learn English better if you’re going to listen to complex discussions and not expect to feel confused afterwards

@@yomamma.ismydaddy216 who you talking to kid?

His argument is that Paul believed the resurrection to be spiritual not physical. Richard isn’t saying that he himself believes that. The logic is that if Paul believed there wasn’t a physical resurrection then our most reliable documents on the matter (Paul’s letters) suggest that Jesus didn’t rise physically. Which is the topic of the debate - was Jesus resurrected. Richard does not believe that God exists but there’s no point arguing that God doesn’t exist because that’s not the topic of THIS debate.

I agree totally. Any written text meant to convince people by said god should be clear and understandable by everyone. If the god of the bible existed, he would see to it that other texts to the contrary would simply vanish. Dr. Carrier's books would also disappear and there would not be a role for the Mike Liconas of this world.

When he was done, were they house-broken? Could they sit up and beg or get the newspaper when it arrived?

I mean women could come up with stories like this too lol what do you mean

@@Greyz174 No. Women could not come up with stories. Women were not allowed to. Women were not permitted to read nor were the allowed to write. Reading and Writing was reserved for MEN Only from the Elite Class. Women from the Elite Class were forbidden from reading and writing. Women of that ancient culture may have their own creation stories, but then MEN never allowed them.

@@psexnyc you were referring to women in general and how their common nature as part of that gender that applies to all human females is different that they wouldnt even come up with that Thats a different thing than "if a woman happened to come up with that story she would probably not be able to write it down and spread it because of the social limitations of 1st century judaism"

@@Greyz174 Either way you choose to "analyze" my comment, Women, because of their Gender, were not allowed to read, or write nor be educated. UpperClass and LowerClass alike. Women and girls in the biblical era were expected to learn domestic skills, such as cooking, cleaning, and sewing, and they were also expected to learn about childrearing. Men, on the other hand, were expected to learn about religion, law, and warfare. Men wrote the books in the Bible for Men to read. Women weren't allowed. If so, the Bible Stories would be much better and more worth believing.

@@psexnyc right but there isnt a difference in the essence of someone's gender that would make it so at all times only men could come up with something like this right

Lol exactly. No scientific definition = no historical resurrection.

@@timmarrier You realize, of course, that "If it has no scientific definition then it is not a valid proposition" logically fails its own test, right? That proposition cannot be derived from science.

The shroud dates to the 13th century at the earliest.

@@nathanwhite704 no. There is more research done that dates it back earlier. I encourage to research the inquiry.

People can have ecstatic experiences where they dont see exaclty the same thing but since they dont draw exactly what they saw and compare notes they agree it was the same thing Super convenient how your workdview has a guy going around making it seem like your worlview is false. Great failsafe against someone ever pointing out something that seems false about your worldview. I wish i could concoct someone like that to explain why people disagreed with me then i wouldnt have to put in the effort to consider that they might be right and me wrong...

It must hurt to have what you think you believe so thoroughly dismantled

"Let us learn hence: 1.) That atheism is folly, and the atheist the greatest fool in nature, for he sees a world that could not make itself, and yet he will not own it had a maker." -Matthew Henry, _Commentary on the Whole Bible_ , regarding Genesis 1:1. To put Henry's remarks into a modern context: The evidence is the existence of matter. The universe, and all of the matter within in, began to exist. We call that the Big Bang theory. Things which begin to exist have a cause. Therefore the universe had a cause, i.e., a creator (cf. Licona, Turek, McDowell, Craig, et al). That cause existed "prior" to time, and is therefore eternal; that cause existed outside of matter and was therefore transcendent (cf. Turek). A transcendent eternal creator is, by definition, God. QED.

@@WhereWhatHuh Brahma is the creator.

@@Simon.the.Likeable Depending on the exact flavor of Hinduism to which you subscribe, that may be a logically impossible position.

@@WhereWhatHuh Maybe it is Allah. It's all a bit of a lottery anyway.

@@Simon.the.Likeable Actually, Allah is just plain out. Logically impossible, because Islam calls Jesus a prophet. It invokes a Smullyanesque riddle: Sign A: Only A is true Sign B: Both signs are true Sign B (islam in this example) cannot be true, because that would make sign A true, which would make sign B false.

mike lost to Dr. Carrier

...gullible.

general comments i pray you humble yourself before you take your last breath because we all must give an account to the God YHWH you say doesn’t exist

general comments like i said i hope and pray you humble yourself before you have to give an account to what sounds like ill informed rhetoric . That is not the God of the Bible of which you are trying to paint an ill informed picture of. The God of the Bible sacrificed himself for you and rose from the grave on the 3 rd day except it or not its a fact! And what pride and arrogance you display by claiming you know better then God and how he should act and be.

general comments Read Numbers 3:12 they where not to be killed they where to be set apart for service later on after the rebellion at the base of Mt Sinai the firstborn where no longer those who where set apart for the Lord that now went to the levitical priesthood Numbers 3:12 12 “Behold, I have taken the Levites from among the people of Israel instead of every firstborn who opens the womb among the people of Israel. The Levites shall be mine, so are you saying God was saying kill al those of the tribe of Levi

@@jeffh4836 How can God die? Is Jesus and God the same? Can one part of you die but the rest not die? Also, why didn't he stay dead. It doesn't seem like a real sacrifice if you only die for a weekend, you plan it yourself, and then get to rise again and be God of the universe, but unbelievers go to hell for eternity. If that was the punishment, why would Jesus not have gone to hell for eternity? If he took our place, was the punishment crucifixion or hell. I am just confused and no one has ever explained this for me, so I just can't wrap my head around it.

Kayla S. You are ignorant of what the Bible claims. And also of what is known as the hypostatic union of Jesus being completely God and completely man. Yes Jesus the man died and yes God raised him from the dead . Now I don’t have time to write everything out right now but if your sincerely interested in truth pray and God will bring you understanding but don’t just read the critics read good theologians for answers on these questions . I hope and pray you sincerely seek the truth because it will set you free

That's an interesting opinion. I'm assuming there's not too many of these kinds of debates in which you have a different opinion though. I myself thought it well argued on both sides. For the record, I'm an atheist, and always thought Paul argued for the literal resurrection of Jesus' earthly body, so Carriers position on that was new to me. I thought the examples he gave from 1 and 2 Corinthians were actually quite persuasive in showing how Paul argues for a heavenly body distinct from the current physical one.

@@colinc892 The problem, Sir, is that Carrier is cherry-picking verses and lifting them from context. He then interprets the verse to fit his own pre-concieved beliefs. Allow me to do the same, and I can use his _OHJ_ to prove that he believes Jesus rose from the dead, and that Elvis is alive and living in Las Vegas.

@@colinc892 What WhereWhatHuh wrote echoes my sentiment.

@@WhereWhatHuh Well I could claim the same thing about Licona, but instead of making claims, let's talk specfics. What about his take on 1 Corinthians 15 regarding the nature of resurrected bodies do you feel to be out of context or incorrect and why?

@@colinc892 It's been a while since I read _OHJ_ , and to be honest, my first objection to it was that it assigned a 0 probability space to the view held by Christians, meaning that from then onward he was arguing against a straw man that no one believes. But I assume that he makes much of 1 Cor. 15:44, that the dead die in Physical bodies, and are raised in spiritual bodies. Physical comes from Greek _Psychikos_ , animated, or "goverened by breath" (i.e. its own breath and passions) (G5591) ; the word translated Spiritual is Greek _pneumatikos_ , related to spirit, related to the Holy Spirit, pertaining to the wind or breath. (G4152). Thus Paul is making a pun; We sow the dead body that has been governed by its own earthly breath and passions; We raise a body governed by God's breath and passions. If, as I vaguely recall, Carrier attempts from this to show that the resurrection was purely a spiritual thing, occurring outside of actual physical history, then that would be an example of the poverty of his research (or possibly of his integrity). He makes a similar miscitation with a passage in Jeremiah, where he takes the prophet's protest against pagan worship and attempts to imply that paganism was a part of YHWH worship, instead of a distinct religious viewpoint. He ignores Paul's doctrine of bodily resurrection, earlier in that chapter (vv.3-8). He also ignores Paul's association with Luke, cf. _Acts_ 17 ff., and the fact that the Lucan account is clear that the resurrection was bodily in nature. See Luke 24:36-43. Thus it seems clear that Carrier is lifting passages from context and using Eisegesis (a process of misinterpreting a passage to match our prior notions, or "reading into the text" the desired meaning). If you have examples of eisegesis by Licona, I would be interested to see them.

Yeah, so tell Licona.

Who is the Devil lying through? Licona or Carrier? And how could you tell which, if the Devil is so crafty? Or what if the Devil created Christianity to trick people into breaking the Commandment to put no God before Yahweh, thus making Jesus-worshippers idolaters? Or what if...there's no Devil at all? And no God. And humans are just tricking themselves and talking to themselves?

@@noamaster3898 The devil would more likely be using the cover of religion as the religious are easier to pull one over on.

It must hurt to have what you think you believe so thoroughly dismantled