Mike Licona and Laura Robinson discuss JESUS, HISTORIANS, & MIRACLES with host Cameron Bertuzzi

[@titosantiago3694]

The Historical work of men on the ressurection of Christ like Mike, has greatly strengthened and deepened my faith. The Historical evidence which is now readily provided and available has been a treasure to me and others I've shared it with.

[@titosantiago3694]

@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros With all due respect, you are misinformed at best. My hope is in the Gospel or Good News, of which the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a huge part of it. As Paul clearly puts it, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." -1 Corinthians 15:13 Moreover, it is good to know that there is sound reasonable historical evidence that supports the resurrection.

[@CCiPencil]

@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros he said deepen his faith, not that the historical evidence is the source of his faith. Don’t straw men brothers in Christ. Let’s have a little more grace.

[@paulkelly1162]

Laura is correct that doubt is essential to the Christian experience. Ideally, it should lead to prayer, making a spiritual and moral inventory, and engaging in spiritual practice (like contemplative prayer). HOWEVER, "doubt" is like a subpersonality that can hijack our thinking. As long as historical apologetics allows us to judge that it is rationally permissible to believe Jesus rose from the dead, then it clears away the only doubt that is substantial. To go the rest of the way out of doubt, you need Jesus. So, I think a middle ground between their approaches is the soundest.

[@ByChris]

God continues to bless you in your wisdom, Mike.

[@Fadi.N]

There is a lot of theological significance to Christ’s resurrection, but I feel like Laura is reducing the meaning of theology to mean something more like mythology! I have listened to many Christian theologians talking about the resurrection and none of them thought the (bodily) resurrection was not significant. It is, in fact, so significant to Christians. I am afraid if we reduce Jesus’s resurrection to “Jesus being present among people in spirit.,” if we say that, then what distinguishes Jesus from other figures in history whom their followers claim that they’re with them in spirit?

[@acarpentersson8271]

Sounds like Rob Bell's theology

[@zacdredge3859]

On the contrary she clearly says near the start that she *does* believe in the resurrection(19:23), her contention seems to be with the way classical apologetics(represented by Mike) assume that proving the resurrection historically needs to be achieved or else we don't have a case for Christ. In terms of our own faith this question is mostly relevant in times of personal doubt but for convincing others there are real questions of whether we're pushing what evidence we do have beyond the realm of credibility.

[@CCiPencil]

@@zacdredge3859 I think this is a worthwhile point. How much role and power do we put into apologetics? I think apologetics is important but in the end it doesn’t provide someone with faith, it can help the truth of gospel message to sink in or deepen faith during times of faith struggle; but I think the theological point is more important

[@georgechristiansen6785]

@@zacdredge3859 "classical apologetics(represented by Mike) assume that proving the resurrection historically needs to be achieved or else we don't have a case for Christ." But this is a strawman. They do not say any such thing. MI even says here that there are legitimate reasons outside of a historical case to believe. They simply say we need to demonstrate it historically to have a historical case.

[@margahe9157]

About 3 or 4 month ago I saw Laura Robinson on a non-christian chanal. There she said some really NOT NICE things, about Mike Licona and some other well known evangelicals, concerning their work. I Cannot remember all, but the gist was, that they are dishonest and twisting facts, so that their books sell better. I'm VERY astonished to see her here engaging with Mike Licona!

[@michaelglass9604]

I did not know M Licona until this interview, but I am now a fan in part for the gracious caring way Mike Licona addresses her at 1.26.13. I have heard what she has said about Lee Stroble’s work. and it made my month to hear what Mike Licona said to her at 1.25.13. Thank you M. Licona.

[@bryanhall2860]

1:53:40 sums up this discussion quite nicely.

[@AndJusticeForMe]

Excellent job, Laura. Not much further to go.

[@bhughes3663]

Podcast link?

[@lionhound2506]

I was honestly surprised that Cameron put Laura Robinson with Mike Licona in a discussion format. Mike I thought steered the ship calmly and with precision on key points, points that were lost on Laura. Her facial expressions were, quite frankly, juvenile. Not on the academic level or maturity level of Mike Licona. Great Job Mike! As a truth seeker and one who recognizes his own bias, you could objectively be honest and identify places to stake ground and go to work."

[@jackwilmoresongs]

I hear Laura's point. And I hear Mike's also. There's room for both. The members of the Body have varied functions. Nothing would make the Devil happier then to entice the members of the Body to fight with each other over whose function is more important. While we dispute with each other if the eye or the nose or the hand is the most important, we would miss the common enemy of the whole church and the whole Gospel message.

[@alexfaith5562]

Thank you Dr Licona for the upload! I wonder why disciple Thomas was not used as evidence for Jesus's bodily resurrection?

[@wpankey57]

I have to side with Mike on this one. Laura is bordering on shaky evangelical ground here. Hedging on the bodiless resurrection of Jesus is scary stuff.

[@wpankey57]

Papa Smurf You got that right!

[@titosantiago3694]

Laura sounds a little like Bart Ehrman right now...lol!

[@AndJusticeForMe]

And that’s a wonderful thing.

[@margahe9157]

we DO KNOW why Paul persecuted the church! He, himself stats, that he fought for the practice of the Jewish Law!

[@titosantiago3694]

Laura claims that to her, the Historical evidence is just not good enough so its honest to say so. So does this mean that those like Mike L., Gary H., and Craig are being dishonest?

[@PulsechainX]

Evidence by these scholars is very clear. Laura's views are just weird and ill-informed on the history, and somewhat confused and sound like new age or progressive nonsense.

[@titosantiago3694]

@@PulsechainX agreed... that's a good description of what I think is going on with her worldview.

[@titosantiago3694]

@Papa Smurf before you launch a nuclear attack on someone, you may want to be informed who you're talking to and remember to be charitable to all especially non-believers. I am NOT an atheist, I am a child of God. My comment was meant to highlight the implications of Laura's comment when taken to its logical conclusion. She basically unknowingly called historians like Mike L. dishonest. I greatly respect, admire, and am thankful for Mike L.

[@titosantiago3694]

@Papa Smurf Social media is not the best medium of communication. I have no reason to call them dishonest. I have their books and follow their podcasts. My comment was written as I was viewing the video and heard Laura state something along the lines like "we don't have good evidence for the ressurection and it's ok to be honest about it". To me that was a blow against apologists like Mike L. or Gary H. who say we do have good evidence. In other words, her comment implied that she's an honest historian regarding the evidence, but the other historians are not-meanjng "dishonest". Hope that clears it up.

[@margahe9157]

1:07;57 around here! ???? Which church? Catholic? Protestant liberal? Protestant evangelical? Coptic? Orthodox? greek? Russian? Pentecostal?

[@zacdredge3859]

1:30:17 Well I think Mike's defense of Strobel was quite touching but then Cameron had to use it as a lay up to dunk on presup apologists with a tone that makes it sound like a slur... Mike then affirms this after making the case that people have different needs for belief; what if some people *need* to be convinced of the internal consistency and veracity of Christian theism before they will accept Christ? is it all good and well for Mike to need evidential support for his faith but unfathomable others may need a different kind? I'm honestly a little surprised how quickly Laura jumped into denounce presup considering she said overtly that she believes faith is a gift of God and her thesis here seems to be questioning the capacity and validity of an evidential approach. Is she simply against all apologetics? To be clear, I'm not touting presup in an exclusionary way, which may seem a contradiction, but defending it as a valid option. What I mean is that the Church is made up of people with different giftings and what are we to say to someone who is great at presuppositonal apologetics but lacking in their evidential approach? 1 Corinthians 12 comes to mind...

[@margahe9157]

43:12 Peter certainly know about the empty tomb! Paull met Peter! Why didn't the Sanhedrin confront the unrest causing disciples with the dead body? That would have solved the problem for all eternity! Even this video never would have been made!

[@GTMGunTotinMinnesotan]

She seems a little dodgy or unprepared perhaps? Glad she was a good sport to come to the table. Entertaining discussion.

[@thedude882]

She is a historian with a phd, it seems the other way around to me.

[@Pseudo-Jonathan]

@@thedude882 she’s a theologian and PhD candidate. At the time of this video, Mike Licona HAS PhD and is tenured professor at a accredited institution. She’s a student

[@99cachorro]

I'm with Laura on this. Not a lot of evidence, must be taken on faith. I think this is why most religions are "faith based" or believing without evidence.

[@computationaltheist7267]

That's not being neutral. That is just preferring atheistic naturalism over theism. It is a battle of metaphysics at the end of the day.

[@Brenda-qo4ko]

I believed in the gospel of Jesus Christ long before I learned more about historical evidence or heard philosophical arguments that what I believe is true.So I believe in revelatory evidence through the Holy Spirit.In fact I think it's the deal breaker.One can hear evidence like historical or philosophical evidence for God or that Jesus Christ rose from the dead but never accept it as truth until the Holy Spirit changes their minds and hearts to believe.I think God can use apologetic information to help bring someone to Christ like He can just sharing the gospel with someone.I think at least some of what Laura was talking about was that very thing...she understands the ultimate importance of divine revelation to each individual as to whether or not someone believes.However, Laura sometimes sounded like she isn't sure that the entirety of the Bible is the true, inspired word of God.I wonder if she continues to pursue her line of thinking about the information that's contained in the Bible it will lead to eventual deconstruction of her faith.She's definitely has liberal leanings.

[@resurrectionnerd]

Since Paul uses a "vision" as a "resurrection appearance" and only describes what seems to be a subjective change of heart in Gal. 1:16, then we have reason to doubt these experiences actually happened. Normally when someone claims to have a "vision" or hear a story about one, we automatically doubt it. One can't claim someone's vision really came from God without begging the question - assume some form of Christianity is true a priori. But the truth of Christianity relies on if they really saw Jesus alive again after his death. The only firsthand sources are Paul and John of Patmos in Rev. 1:9-18, both of which describe a visionary experience. The later gospels present a more physical/corporeal depiction of the resurrection involving an empty tomb where Jesus is touched and witnessed ascending to heaven. Unfortunately, these are not firsthand reports, but later stories written by anonymous authors that are all inconsistent with one another. The resurrection is simply a legend which grew out of subjective visionary experiences and perhaps some collective spiritual experiences like people share in church on Sunday. There simply is no evidence anyone actually saw Jesus alive again after his death.

[@titosantiago3694]

Ahh...now it unfolds. I think Laura is superimposing whatever her systemic beliefs are on to this conversation and probably believe that is the only way.

[@Tom-j4v7f]

Apostle Paul was not an eyewitness of the risen Christ.

[@NightShade671]

Laura doesn't seem to know the critical scholarship. Mike should have stressed the plausibility argument using the data allowed by critical scholars.

[@NightShade671]

She sets the bar too high, which if she applied to other ancient histories would be disastrous. She's missing the forest for the trees.

[@margahe9157]

Oh, she called Strobble a lier in this other non Christian Channel!

[@mwashington9174]

That's cause he is a liar. She saw the movie and the dates did match which makes him a liar.

[@charles4208]

@@mwashington9174 people dramatize movies based on true story’s all the time, it’s not lying it’s the genre of that particular media.

[@NightShade671]

Cameron spent too much time on Sara's stupid question. Cameron can be immature. I also don't think Mike was assertive enough in this discussion.

[@flamingswordapologetics]

Peter and Paul probably never talked about the resurrected body, lol. It's only the core foundation of the Christian faith-the resurrection! Cameron, Mike, I'm all about respect, all about working with brothers and sisters on non essentials, but the resurrection of Jesus Christ IS THE essential. Okay, finished. Got to say, Mike I subscribed to your channel not only for Apologetics, but because like me, you've had doubt. Endorsing Laura's position as an alternative Christian view is disappointing to say the least. It's views like hers that leads to doubt. I hope you can put this into context. Thanks!

[@marsman1211]

Laura sounds like a secular Christian. If I had her views I would be an atheist! A wolf on sheep's clothing.maybe?!

[@flamingswordapologetics]

All the weight on Paul? What about the gospels? I've just started this, but so far, Laura sounds like an almost non Christian. If Christ didn't literally rise from the grave, our faith is in vein.

[@thedude882]

Laura explained the gospels are not independent. Listen more carefully.

[@Zebhammer]

I don't know how far behind the UK you Yanks are but this is why I left my last church. The Baptist Church here was once a sound conservative Bible believing denomination, but it has descended into this endless, liberal dissection of the Bible, Bible history, and theology. Like most denominations here unfortunately. The result. Less than 5% of us are church attending (COVID-19 withstanding) Christians. Good luck America. Church attendance is plummeting, now I know why. Christians who know better than the Apostles, early church fathers etc.

[@theouterplanet]

I wonder what they think of the shroud of Turin? If it’s real, which many believe, it’s historical evidence of the resurrection.

[@Harry-nb2to]

I thought she said she believed in the resurrection at the beginning... turns out she doesn't

[@thedude882]

She does, she simply doesn't believe you can prove it using the historical method, rather by faith and personal experience and divine revelation. You should listen more carefully to both sides.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

Laura Robinson is both embodying a number of females stereotypes and discrediting her credentials. Her ignorance of even the basic contents of the NT is a bit embarrassing. Not to mention her whole attitude that the "least interesting thing we can ask is 'did it happen?;" flying in the face of the tactics of the NT evangelists and Paul's statement that it is the criteria by which anything else in Christianity gains any value at all. If Christ is not raised we (the persecuted Christians) are to be pitied more than all men. She's simply not a person I can find any reason to take seriously. I also think Mike Licona is simply too kind to her ignorant statements (he is the same way in other debates I've seen). I appreciate respecting her, but the soft approach to the content underemphasizes the massive differences in the reliability of their claims. A humble epistemology is important and I whole heartedly agree with him on certainty, but some claims are simply ridiculous and fly in the face of the evidence and should be treated with scorn.

[@TheBirdIsFreedEM]

Before the eyes could be the shroud of turin, other relics, move of the holy spirit. She has done all these master degrees and seems clueless about Christianity in many respects. She sounds like an atheist lol.