Open Forum: Live with Gary Habermas & Mike Licona

Every year around this time, Gary & Eileen Habermas visit Mike & Debbie Licona for a week. This will be the 27th or 28th year they have done this. Join Gary & Mike Sunday evening for an open Q&A. Ask Gary about his magnum opus, a 4-volume series with his life's work updated on the resurrection of Jesus, his use of the "Minimal Facts Approach," Near-Death Experiences, the Shroud of Turin, and other topics! Time: 7pm EDT, Sept 29.

____________________

Mike Licona is Professor of New Testament Studies at Houston Christian University. HCU offers an accredited Master of Arts degree in apologetics that may be completed entirely online or on the HCU campus in Houston.

[swiftf]

Mike, you are an honest truth seeker - willing to admit your uncertainties and allowing the facts to lead where they lead. I appreciate your take. I always listen to your take on things and consider your views and opinions…and I’m atheist.

Gary, you are so concerned about being correct, you seemingly lie or state things as fact that you indeed know are not. Be willing to be wrong or uncertain about things. Be more like Mike and maybe people will listen to you and take you more seriously

[mylord]

I found Dr. Habermas' answers to the question from Paulogia to be evasive even as Dr. Licona tried to get Dr. Habermas to answer the specific question. Even the question about what constitutes a "majority" of critical scholars, Dr. Habermas could not give a direct answer, yet in his book, Dr. Habermas stated the figure of 90%.

[Reluctant.Unitarian.Preexister]

The comparison is apples and oranges between the minimal data for the resurrection and the maximal data approach. The minimal uses scholarship across the board; the maximal doesn’t, but merely carves its own based on a specific epistemological method.
1:55:00

[bendecidospr]

As a student of Dr. Habermas, I am disappointed at hearing him say he has never said he head-counted, or that he's never given it a percentage. He has said both in my presence, multiple times. To admit you have never counted how many critical scholars affirm something, but to say its the vast majority, is very, very, troubling, if not dishonest.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Paulogia drops in with a simple question, and Gary immediately starts dodging & lying lmao -- it's so clear that even Mike is getting uneasy over the dishonesty, but he can only try (and mostly fail) to pry out honest answers and won't actually call him out!

[mtdouthit]

Mike, for decades you and Gary have said that Gary did this massive head count list on scholars via the minimal facts. Why did he say here that actually he didn’t on any except for the empty tomb?

[WesTheRuckmanite]

So we have no evidence for group appearances??

[John__]

Great video. Add time stamps so people can skip to the topics they want to hear about most.

[resurrectionnerd]

Thanks for answering the questions!

It seems Habermas is conflating the type of resurrection Paul believed with how Jesus "appeared" or "was seen" after the Resurrection. These are not the same thing.

He appeals to the fact that since Paul believed in the physical resurrection of the body, that it must follow that the appearances were physical as well. This is a non-sequitur as one could believe Jesus had been physically resurrected - due to background resurrection beliefs (a literal interpretation of Isa. 26:19 for instsnce) but also believe he didn't "appear" to anyone until after his exaltation to heaven, making the experiences mistaken or imaginary i.e. not physical interactions with a resurrected corpse like the later gospels describe. There is no necessary connection to a physically resurrected person remaining on the earth for an extended length of time. Paul seems to imply instant exaltation coinciding with the resurrection - Phil. 2:8-9, Rom. 8:34, Eph. 1:20.

As you admit in the video, you cannot deny this scenario because you believe it in the case of Paul - Gal. 1:16, 1 Cor 15:8, Acts 26:19.

It seems clear from your answers that you are reading the later gospels and Acts into Paul in order to conclude these were physical encounters with a revived corpse but proper exegesis must let Paul speak for himself.

[resurrectionnerd]

39:59 _"ophthe is more often used of physical sight than non-physical sight"_

Here are all the instances of ὤφθη in the New Testament.

Matthew 17:3
and behold appeared (ὤφθη) to them Moses - Called a "vision" (horama) in Mt. 17:9.

Mark 9:4
And appeared (ὤφθη) to them Elijah - Same Transfiguration appearance described in Matthew

Luke 1:11
appeared (ὤφθη) moreover to him - "an angel appeared" - called a "vision" in Lk. 1:22.

Luke 22:43
appeared (ὤφθη) moreover to him - "an angel from heaven appeared"

Luke 24:34
Lord and appeared (ὤφθη) to Simon - taken directly from 1 Cor 15:5 but the appearance is not described. Notice how in the clearly physical appearances to the other disciples the word ὤφθη is not used.

Acts 2:3
"tongues of fire appeared (ὤφθησαν) among them" - manifestation of the spirit "from heaven" - Acts 2:2

Acts 7:2
"The God of glory appeared (ὤφθη) to our father Abraham"

Acts 7:26
day he (Moses) appeared (ὤφθη) to them as they were fighting together,

Acts 7:30
years forty appeared (ὤφθη) to him in - "an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush"

Acts 13:31
who appeared (ὤφθη) for days - notice how the appearances are not described and compare this to Acts 10:40-41 _"but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."_ If they were physical appearances then why wasn't he seen by everyone? Why does the author go out of his way to restrict the appearances to a choice few? Saying God "caused him to be seen" is an odd way of saying they were physical appearances. It sounds more like he was flipping a switch on and off. I take it that Luke was very well aware of the spiritual interpretation of appearances and that explains the polemic against them in Lk. 24.

Acts 16:9
to Paul appeared (ὤφθη) a man of Macedonia - (in a vision)

Acts 26:16
I have appeared (ὤφθην) to you - in a "vision from heaven" - Acts 26:19

1 Corinthians 15:5
and that he appeared (ὤφθη) to Cephas then - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

1 Corinthians 15:6
Then he appeared (ὤφθη) to more than five hundred - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

1 Corinthians 15:7
Then he appeared (ὤφθη) to James then - the same verb is used for Paul's vision in the same list.

1 Corinthians 15:8
the untimely birth he appeared (ὤφθη) also to me - which was a vision/revelation - Gal. 1:16, Acts 26:19

1 Timothy 3:16 in [the] Spirit was seen (ὤφθη) by angels was proclaimed

Revelation 11:19
heaven and was seen (ὤφθη) the ark - takes place in heaven

Revelation 12:1
a sign great was seen (ὤφθη) - in heaven

Revelation 12:3
And was seen (ὤφθη) another sign - in heaven

The only occurrence where the word can plausibly be argued to clearly mean a physical appearance indicating normal seeing is in Acts 7:26 but it seems Luke is just using the word there to compare Moses to Jesus. All the other instances are in reference to visionary seeing, angels appearing, or things being "seen" in heaven. From this data, we can conclude the nature of the appearances is ambiguous at best, spiritual at worst in our earliest source.

[randyrobinson]

I am curious about Jesus and His statement "I AM" Seems congruent with other claims He made so am confused about this being questionable.

[BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Fun to watch you challenge him at the beginning. I was almost sure you guys put percentages on this in your popular book. I’ll have to double check.

[joeyangtree]

It is amazing to me how a single question from a non-scholar (Paulogia) caused Ph.D. and resurrection expert Gary Habermas to tap dance for 15 minutes over what is included in his own minimal facts argument and what skeptical scholars believe about group hallucinations.

You would think after working for his resurrection arguments and list of minimal facts for literal decades, Habermas would have thought through EXACTLY what the minimal facts are in great detail and recognized that they DO NOT include group appearances. At 4:00 Habermas claims the exact opposite.

What does Habemas say about his minimal facts? "So why do even critical scholars admit or allow these individual historical facts? The answer is that each one is virtually undeniable." The mere fact that Mike Licona can quickly list critical scholars that do not accept group appearances while Habermas struggles mightily to even name a single scholar that denies a risen Jesus that does accept group appearances demonstrates that "group appearances" is not and cannot be a minimal fact.

[janvidmar]

Thank you dear Doctors, this was a joy to watch. May God bless you both.

[stefan-rarescrisan]

I'm going through a stage of doubt similar to that of Gary's youth. I'm 26, from Romania, really into acquiring books on the topic and even started learning Koine Greek.

As for now, my personal best reason why the resurrection is true, is the conversion, testimony and life of Apostle Paul. I believe he was sincere, reasonable and intelligent, and had an unexpected conversion.

I wonder what would Mike and Gary think about my reason? Is it a strong one?

[mkl]

Badass Habermas and Dr Licona are quite the awesome team! (Btw: I just got your book “Jesus, Contradicted” and it’s great… like a Master’s symposium!). Strong team !! 💪🏼 🎸 ❤️

[WesTheRuckmanite]

The whole resurrection depends on a few individual sightings? And the rest is hearsay???

Please, Mike, tell me I am understanding this wrong.

[adamstewart]

I've asked Dr. Habermas on Sean McDowell's channel that Christian philosopher Lydia McGrew on her blog has critiqued him for seeming to misunderstand that C.H. Dodd thinks his cited Gospel' resurrection appearances are false.

Mike or Gary, do you have any thoughts on that? You may want to read her blog posts if you haven't already, to get some more context.

[mr.pontifex]

Imagine spending your life trying to promote something only to publish TWO volumes of unconvincing and ridiculous examples of mental incredulity. I'd be ashamed to call this my "life's work". Habbermas fails at even to justify his "group appearances" that aren't part of minimal facts argument in his 1st volume. If an author is so pudding brained about his own work, why would we use his interpretations of anything to support our own views? Habbermas's work is full of special pleading, the well informed see this.

[wickius]

You guys are so cool! Not only are you top notch scholars… but two guys I’d love to hang out with! Lord bless you richly, my Brothers!