Licona vs. Carrier: On the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

This debate, which examined the rational evidence for faith in Jesus' resurrection, was given at the University of California, Los Angeles on April 19, 2004, and was moderated by S. Scott Bartchy, Professor of History at UCLA and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion.

Richard Carrier
is a historian and philosopher, whose articles have appeared in many publications, including the Skeptical Inquirer and the Secular Web. His book, Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, is due out next year, along with an anthology, Jesus Is Dead, which includes three chapters by Carrier on the Resurrection. He is currently writing a dissertation on ancient Roman science at Columbia University. He has been involved in online, atheist-theist debates for more than ten years and served as Feedback Editor and Editor in Chief of the Secular Web for many years.

Mike Licona is a New Testament historian with a Master of Arts degree in Religious Studies from Liberty University and is a Ph.D. candidate in New Testament Studies at the University of Pretoria. He is a member of the Society of Biblical Literature and Evangelical Philosophical Society. Mike is the author of three books, the most recent being The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Professor Gary Habermas remarks, "In my opinion, Mike's knowledge of the case for Jesus' resurrection places him among an elite number of evangelicals who are writing on the subject today."

Support Richard Carrier's efforts by purchasing a copy of this debate here:


Idea said...

I dont think that matters at all, if tomb was empty or not, it doesnt prove or disprove anything supernatural about Jesus figure.

Body could be stolen or they just made it up, but I just cannot see the point why is empty tomb so important. It does not prove that any miracle was involved. :)

freedy said...

I think the babble goes on to say he appeared to multitudes of people after he resurrected.

This too as you said,"was just made up."

Anonymous said...

When we read the gospels, we know where jesus was every step of the way. The stories vary, of course, but we read that he was born in Bethlehem; his family ran to Egypt; he was in the temple at age 12; he was baptized in the Jordan; he turned water into wine at Cana, and so on. With every chapter, we can point on the map where he was.

All except for his burial. Then the best we read is that he was buried in "a tomb" in "a cemetary" somewhere in Jerusalem. Do you take this seriously? If the resurrection had taken place, the gospel writers would have recorded exactly where the cemetary was and exactly where the tomb was. But they didn't, because the story is bullshit. The tomb would have been venerated to this day.

All you empty tomb nuts, come forth. Where is the tomb? No tomb, no jesus, and no religion, or relationship, or whatever the hell you call it.

Anonymous said...

This is just so funny. Are we to believe that he performed this cute miracle and turned water into Muscatel, and we know the name of the town, but the central fact of christianity, the resurrection, is unrecorded?

boomSLANG said...

Where is the tomb? No tomb, no jesus, and no religion, or relationship, or whatever the hell you call it.

...and let's add to that list, no promise of a perpetually blissful post-mortem existence in the clouds....i.e.."Heaven". This is significant, of course, because if it were not this promise; if it were not for this "carrot", there would be no reason to believe such outlandish, nonsensical rubbish, on such pathetically weak "evidence".

Anonymous said...

And Boom, the other thing is the fear of hell. Once that notion gets into your head, you are ready to believe anything. I know. Ive been there.

eel_shepherd said...

shedevil wrote:
"And Boom, the other thing is the fear of hell. Once that notion gets into your head, you are ready to believe anything..."

Exactly. Xtians aren't about heaven; they're about hell. Most of us, when we're thinking about how good it can get, can't really come up with something a whole lot different than being nineteen years old again and being rich and sucking back margaritas in a villa somewhere in the Mediterranean. Which would be nice, granted; but not a whole lot nicer than some of the good times that happen every year anyway in our own lives.

Hell, on the other hand... that's a whole other thing altogether. You can really knock yourself out thinking how bad it could be. An eternity of all your least favourite things, being waterboarded while chewing on tinfoil and needing to pee, while being lectured by your mother in law, with some little pomeranian terrier yapping away in the background. Shouldn't think about this sort of stuff this close to bedtime, might give me bad dreams.

boomSLANG said...

Exactly. Xtians aren't about heaven; they're about hell.

Yup; understood and agreed. My intitial point, however, was that from a christian perspective, the alternative to "Heaven" or "Hell" is the complete annihilation of the "self". In other words, we simple die; the end.

This, of course, is something they cannot fathom, and thus, this is what motivates them to believe the rest of the outlandish rubbish in the pages in the "Holy Bible"..i.e..up-right walking cadavers, talking vegetation, whale-stomach bungaloos, the world's biggest floating zoo, etc.

Pageviews this week: