From Mike Licona’s Risen Jesus web site.
UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
I’m now scheduled to participate in two debates to be held next Spring:
1) with Richard Carrier on Jesus’ resurrection; Feb 11 @ Washburn University in Topeka, KS
2) with Stephen Patterson of the Jesus Seminar on Jesus’ resurrection; Wednesday, March 31 @ 6:00 pm, at FSU in Tallahassee, FL
UPDATE: Mike Licona replied to an e-mail I sent him with this:
My debate with Carrier will differ somewhat from Bill’s. Richard and I have agreed to a different format that we hope will bring greater audience enjoyment and help us to stay on a few important matters longer. After each of us give 15-minute opening statements, we’ll engage in 6 period of questioning (10-minutes each). Each of us will have 3 periods. We’ll then have 5-minute closing statements then open up for audience Q&A.
I thought that Carrier beat Licona narrowly in their first debate. My friends thought it was a draw. But William Lane Craig crushed Carrier soundly in their debate. It will be interesting to see if Licona can do better against Carrier the second time around. Carrier has extreme positions typical of the village atheists in the “Internet Infidels” camp. If Licona could get Carrier to defend his weird ideas, then he will win the debate. I would place Carrier somewhere to the left of hard-core skeptics like Robert Funk or Burton Mack.
Here’s a sample of Mike Licona in action:
He’s much better at debating now that he’s got his Ph.D, and with the highest possible grade. Recently, he’s won two debates against Bart Ehrman. I evaluated Bart Ehrman’s case against the resurrection of Jesus here. Hint: it stinks!
Further study
Audio from the first debate between Richard Carrier and Michael Licona is here at Apologetics 315.
Audio of the William Lane Craig vs. Richard Carrier debate is here at Apologetics 315. Carrier’s admission of defeat is here, on his blog. Craig’s post-debate responses to Carrier is here and here.
Licona’s first debate with Ehrman, (audio, video), which Licona won easily.I enjoyed this debate a lot.
William Lane Craig’s debate with Ehrman, (video), which Craig won easily. This was also a fun debate.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
I’m a big Licona fan. I just used the “minimal facts” approach with a Muslim friend yesterday. Please pray for him.
LikeLike
Neil,
If your friend is logically driven, and I hope so since you’re using a strong logical tack… it may be useful to brush up on what the Koran and Islamic tradition says about Isa (Jesus). It’s internally contradicting, and has given to openning a crack in the strong defense of the Koran as accurate and the bible as a distortion.
Best of luck, and your friend is covered in prayer.
LikeLike
Thanks, James! And yes, I point to specific portions of the Koran that insist that Jesus did not die on the cross and point out which version is more supportable. He gets it.
LikeLike
How are you Knight? Stumbled upon this by accident this morning.
I’m not sure much can be accomplished by another Licona/Carrier debate. Not much new under the sun with this redux, I would guess. Some new blood would be nice. A safe exchange for both Licona and Carrier, as they each know the other all too well. A yawner would be the forecast.
Question: What do you know of stonings and how lethal they were? Don’t mean to put them completely in the past as some barbaric societies still use them. Thanks.
Hope you have been well.
LikeLike
Stoning was a capital punishment. It’s intended result was death. Though there are cases of mob stonings in the bible, that’s not what is in view when God gives it as punishment. Talmudic tradition required that the witnesses standing against the accused would actually have to carry out the punishment. The punishment was carried out in a way that assured the result.
Stephen is stoned after being condemned for blasphemy by the Sanhedrin (Acts 6-7). He is most definitely killed. With no lack of irony, Saul (later Paul) of Tarsus is there and assists with the stoning. Later in Acts, it is recorded that the Jews of Lystra whipped up a mob to stone Paul, whom they thought dead, but he survived.
And yes, stonings are still carried out as official punishment under sharia law, most commonly for a woman who is found guilty of adultery (but not normally the man, if he is a Muslim). If one doubts it, and have a very strong stomach, there are numerous videos of actual stonings carried out in Saudi Arabia and Iran among other to be found on the internet.
LikeLike
Hi, I’m the co-director of the Veritas Forum at FSU. Licona’s discussion with Patterson is March 31st, not April 1st. It’ll be at 6pm in the Oglesby Union Ballrooms, which seats 950. Thanks!
LikeLike
Awesome, I’ll fix it.
LikeLike
Hi there,
I think Licona is doing a great job! His PhD on the resurrection of Jesus is brilliant!
LikeLike
LICONA-PATTERSON DEBATE: A BRIEF REPORT AND ANALYSIS
HELD ON 3/31/2010
A few hours ago my wife and I attended a debate on Jesus’ Resurrection between Mike Licona and Stephen Patterson (a Jesus Seminar scholar) at FSU in Tallahassee, FL. What follows is a brief report and analysis of the debate.
******A BRIEF REPORT
I. Opening
A. Licona presents 5 facts (taken solely from Paul’s undisputed writings) and 4 criteria (method) for concluding that Jesus was physically raised from the dead.
5 Facts
1. Paul was an eyewitness (hostile).
2. Paul knew Jesus’ disciples.
3. Paul taught what the disciples taught.
4. They taught appearances to individuals and groups, to friend and foe alike.
5. They and Paul taught Jesus was physically raised.
4 Criteria
1. Explanatory Scope
2. Explanatory Power
3. Less Ad Hoc
4. Plausibility
The Resurrection hypothesis passes numbers 1, 2, and 3 with flying colors; and it neither passes nor fails number 4 (plausibility).
B. Patterson claims he believes in Jesus’ resurrection, but he does not believe that God raised Jesus physically. For Patterson the bottom line of the debate is whether or not the dead Jesus got resuscitated.
-When Paul uses “according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3-4), he meant God cares for his people according to Hebrew Scriptures. In Jewish terms, resurrection meant “vindication.”
-Patterson asks, “How did Jesus appear to Paul?” and quotes Gal. 1:16, stating that God reveals His Son “in me” (Greek: en emoi), not “to me.”
-“Flesh and blood cannot enter God’s kingdom” (1 Cor. 15:50) contradicts “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39) of Jesus’ getting back to God’s kingdom. Therefore, it follows that Paul did not believe in physical resurrection of Jesus.
-The ancient may believe a person comes back to life and then goes to heaven, but we—the modern man—no longer believe this because our worldview does not allow it.
II. First Rebuttal
A. Licona reviews his facts/method and points out that Patterson disagrees with his number 5 fact, namely, Paul taught that Jesus was physically raised. Licona says:
-Patterson’s appeal to Jewish meaning of resurrection to be “vindication” is irrelevant. In fact, Patterson himself says—Licona quoting him here—that 1 Cor. 15 should be the basis for knowing the earliest Christian traditions.
-Patterson’s translation of soma psuchikon—as “physical” body—(1 Cor. 15:44) is untenable, because there is zero basis for this. “Natural body” is more like it.
-“Flesh and blood” means “mortality” not “physicality.”
-Patterson’s translation of en emoi –as “in me”–(Gal. 1:16) is not strictly “in me.” Gal. 1:24 says, “And they praised God because of me [en emoi].” 1 Cor. 14:11c says, “he is a foreigner to me [en emoi].” The en emoi cannot always legitimately be translated “in me.”
B. Patterson abandons his en emoi=“to me” argument and resorts to saying that Paul’s relation with Jesus was a matter of “spiritual envelopment.”
Patterson tries to resuscitate his soma psuchikon=“physical body” argument, but he could not get it back to life.
Patterson admits that the whole debate is all about worldview. Making a reference to Licona’s fourth criteria, he finds Jesus’ physical resurrection to be implausible because he believes dead people do not come to life. Jesus’ coming to life cannot be an exception, and neither is it necessary.
III. Second Rebuttal
A. Licona reminds the audience of the two major building blocks for the resurrection: facts and method.
-Licona reiterates his points on “to me” versus “in me” and the issue on the use on some psuchikon (natural body) and soma pnematikon (spiritual body).
-Licona says Patterson’s is a worldview problem—a metaphysical bias, not a historically based argument.
B. Patterson is reduced to asking if Paul believed the way the apostles believed, since early Christian proclamation (found in the gospels) was ambiguous.
IV. Closing
A. Licona answers Patterson’s question
B. Patterson’s main conclusion was that if Licona’s view of Jesus’ physical resurrection makes you a better person (e.g., treating your fellow with love, etc.), then stay with it and ignore Patterson’s view.
V. Q and A Session
Only the first question, addressed to Paterson, will be mentioned here:
“Given that this is a worldview issue to you, what is your philosophical justification—since you have no historical justification—for [sic] believing that a dead person does not become alive?” Patterson answers, “Mine is a biological—not a philosophical—justification.” The questioner follows up, “What is your philosophical justification for your biological justification that people will not become alive in the future?” Patterson answered, “I think it’s a good guess.”
*******A DEBATE ANALYSIS
No doubt, Mike Licona killed Stephen Patterson here—it was embarrassing. This is perhaps Licona’s biggest win. The case for Jesus’ resurrection obtains—big time!
There were moments one could tell that Patterson was greatly rattled, and he seemed to be merely going in circles, as though at a loss as to what he was trying to say. Also, there were a few times that he sounded like he was conceding a number of points that Licona had used to demolish his arguments. Frankly, I felt bad for Patterson because he was such a very nice guy and had exercised lots of grace, despite the fiasco.
Basically, having abandoned all his initial arguments (including criticizing the gospels—straw man attack), Patterson was reduced, literally, to making a baseless assumption that “a dead person does not become alive.”
After the debate I personally spoke to Patterson and asked him, “Since you have no historical justification for believing that a dead person does not come to life, you really cannot say—as a historian—that Jesus’ resurrection is implausible.” He responded something to this effect: “Well, we have to use biology and gravity, and historians draw from these.” I said, “So then, you would be using historical justification, not merely biological justification.” His answer seemed rather incoherent, and then he said, “Well, that [biology] is all we have to work with.”
LikeLike