2 Top Historical Scholars PROVE that Jesus Rose (Gary Habermas and Mike Licona)

In this livestream, Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Gary Habermas, two of the top Resurrection scholars in the world, provide historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.

------------------------------------------ GIVING ------------------------------------------

Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.

-------------------------------------------- LINKS --------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------- SOCIAL --------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------- MY GEAR --------------------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

------------------------------------------- CONTACT -------------------------------------------

#Resurrection #Jesus #Christianity

[jenniferdefrates]

The first time I heard Gary Habermas I wept. He was answering all the questions atheists were throwing at me. I felt like I could breathe again. I don't have all the answers, but I was able to see that intelligent, careful, thoughtful scholars have answers. And I so appreciate Mike Licona's ministry as well.

[allanmichel]

1 Cor 15: 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is worthless, and so is your faith.

[michaelewbank]

Amen i am 19 years old and when i was around 11 or 12 i wanted to know the truth, i started studying science history archeology and religion. I'm a Christian and i can assure anyone there is evidence if you seek it.

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye. shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh. findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened

[stwitartjacque]

Thank you for this finally seeing them (even not in person) out from the book I got since 2015 and kept on reading over and over again ~ Seeking Allah Finding Jesus the two great influences of Nabeel Quereshi’s passionate love for Jesus p148 ‘Gary chuckled’ p149 “Now play nice David” 💕 so much love for you both🙏🏼♥️

[lindajohnson]

Luke 16:31 "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

[johncook]

Gary Habermas is great at writing enormous books which are as Gary often says are special brillant and more than enormous? Long live Gary!

[ToxicallyMasculinelol]

I get so frustrated when people say "do you have any historical evidence?" or "do you have anything outside of the bible to prove this isn't just religious nonsense from a religious book?" and they get such a weak response. we need to constantly remind people that the bible IS historical evidence and it's NOT a religious book. texts don't stop being historical the moment that religious people start venerating them. this is getting the causality totally backwards. the biographical accounts were historical first, and that's what convinced so many people to become christians and compile them all into a "religious book." you have to deal with them as historical sources, not as "religious books, " because they didn't start out as religious books.

in all of history we use historical sources to verify other historical sources. if there are multiple primary sources all verifying the same thing, that's great, but it's very rare to get that for many details from the 1st century AD. there are often many secondary sources backing up something like a biography of plato, but very few primary sources. we just make do with what we have. it's only in the realm of religion that people decide to apply an extra dose of skepticism, simply because of incredulity. we have only one source to back up a lot of what we think about plato's life, but we accept it because it seems plausible. but who knows? the author could have lied. he could have done any number of things that all would have been plausible.

plausibility isn't a valid criterion in the first place, let alone when you're dealing with the topic of miracles. a much more reasonable way of looking at this is through the lens of prior probability. it's improbable that someone could heal cripples, but that's not what is being claimed. the claim isn't that a mere human violated the laws of nature, it's that God himself came down and manipulated the universe. it's not improbable _a priori_ unless you deny the existence of God. if God exists, then this is absolutely probable. so, as with any other historical account, the question becomes "how good is the testimony?" see, I used to assume _a priori_ that God doesn't exist, and therefore considered the accounts of Jesus to be improbable due to incompatibility with my naturalistic assumptions.

but once again, that causal relationship is backwards. it's not that God's nonexistence disproves the accounts of Jesus. it's that the accounts of Jesus, taken properly as historical sources attesting to something that is not impossible, prove the existence of God. this is how I became a theist in the first place, after 27 years (since birth) of atheism. I understood the overwhelming probability that the resurrection and healings and other miracles happened, at which point my only explanation for such events was that God must exist after all. whereupon I began investigating metaphysical arguments for God's existence, because prior to that I had only really engaged with atheists' caricatures of these arguments. so I naturally concluded not only that there were no good arguments for God's existence, but that there were actually good arguments for God's nonexistence.

I had it completely backwards, of course. I still don't think metaphysical arguments can absolutely prove that God exists, because even if we take them all for granted, the atheist can always retreat to the conclusion that some unconscious "universe generator, " rather than God, fulfills all the necessary attributes and conditions those arguments require. but at least from here you can see how improbable that is. it may be possible, but it sounds silly, especially when taken in light of the fact that Jesus apparently had godlike powers. if someone has godlike powers and seems to be perfectly good, you should probably trust what he says. if we accept that the authors were sincere, then we need to accept basically everything Jesus said, including that a personal God exists. this isn't a perfect, 100% guarantee that the conclusion is true, but it's more probable than not, which is all that matters. I have no guarantee that my brain is not going to explode tomorrow, but it's improbable enough that I'm going to operate and live my life under the assumption that it's not going to happen.

I struggle with a lot of what Habermas says on these podcasts, even though his written scholarship is great, because he seems to dodge questions like this in ways that are really unsatisfying to skeptics who are full of misconceptions about epistemology of religious facts. it's absolutely vital that people understand that religious claims need to be evaluated as historical accounts. not only the claims of Christianity, but also the claims of every other religion. the Qur'an also makes radical claims, but it's a historical account. if those claims are supported by a large volume of credible eyewitness testimony, if there are additional sources corroborating elements of the story, if they have a high prior probability, and if the alternative explanations for the testimony are less probable than the claim, then the claim is probably true.

in the case of Islam, it's very clear that the Qur'an and hadith pass few of those tests. there is a very low volume of credible eyewitness testimony to any of Islam's unique supernatural claims. the literary style doesn't resemble a historical biography and makes little effort to date anything. virtually all external historical support for Islam is in the form of accounts of Muhammad's military conquests, his feuds with Arabian tribes, and his political measures in the later years of his life. there just isn't any support for the facts of the story that would imply the veracity of his supernatural claims. some of his claims have a low prior probability for many reasons, and there are a variety of vastly more likely explanations for the testimony. even the Qur'an itself records evidence that Muhammad was mentally ill or possessed by demons. he himself believed he was possessed by demons. he didn't change his mind about that until some women who weren't present for the event convinced him that he was talking to an angel rather than having delusions or demonic communications.

so clearly we can engage with religious sources as historical sources without blindly accepting their claims to be true. there are just a huge number of unique aspects of Christianity (and what led me from a lifetime of atheism to Catholicism) that make it vastly more probable than every other religious tradition that makes supernatural claims. its sources are vastly more credible than those of any other religion. the new testament is written in a style totally unlike that of any other religious text ever created, including the old testament. its intrinsic credibility as a series of historical accounts of real events is what allowed it to sweep over the mediterranean within a few generations, conquering the roman empire that spent centuries trying to destroy it, and eventually convincing a full quarter of the human population. unlike Islam, it was not spread by conquest and force. its rapid ascent can only be explained by its credibility, by divine providence, or by both.

people in those days were no more credulous than we are today. even Jesus' followers were instantly skeptical. everyone was. they didn't see any of this firsthand. but the apostles kept track of the eyewitnesses. they went around preaching and, when pressed by skeptics, responded that anyone could go to Judea and ask "who saw Jesus rise from the dead?" and immediately be led to one of hundreds of eyewitnesses. if that wasn't the case, this whole religion never would have worked. this is how they convinced so many gentiles in Turkey and Greece and Egypt and Rome so quickly. many people went to Jerusalem to fact check the apostles and returned as converts.

it wasn't until thousands of years later that people stopped thinking of these biographies and letters as incredible. in legitimate historical scholarship, nobody ever stopped thinking of the new testament as historical. it's only the "new atheists" in the general public, who know so little of the history and scholarship in this field, who wound up thinking of it as ahistorical and passed that on to the culture at large. I come from that group myself, and I too knew far less about historical investigation of Christianity than I thought I did. I was spending all my time reading inflammatory takedowns of the religion that I just basically took for granted that nothing in the Bible constituted a credible source, that it was no more historically valuable than my own scribblings in a journal.

it wasn't until I started investigating the context in which it was written, and re-reading it in light of that context, and following the work of scholars like Brant Pitre, that I finally dropped the arrogant prejudice that made me dismiss the Bible as intrinsically ahistorical by virtue of its religious veneration. the irony is that my attitude at that time was even more fundamentalist than it is now. obviously, not all "new atheists" are completely ignorant of historical scholarship of Biblical events. but oftentimes it seems like they only learned about the events after their mind was already made up, and they're just holding on so tight that they just can't accept the preponderance of the evidence. nothing is good enough. but I think most people can be open to the truth if they can just be shown the actual credibility of the historical documents that were later compiled into the Bible we know today.

[CedanyTheAlaskan]

By the way, Jesus rise bodily from the dead

[luzrodriguez]

BTW - Jesus rose from the dead- I recently start washing videos and debates of Mike Licona and few videos of Gary Habermas, I loved it! they are so great to refute their debater with convincing arguments. Glad to find this video, I could say that this video enriched my knowledge about historical points and facts concerning the resurrection.

[utopiabuster]

BT W, Christianity provides the best explanation for the existence of the world and human complexity.
Extra-biblically, Doctors Habermas and Licona provide some of the best explanations for the validity of that statement.

Really great interview Cam!
Peace and may God continue to Bless you.

[callumclarke]

I Define Atheism is Those Who pretend God does not exist. The resurrection is a historical fact

[brendaninboden]

Paul, an proud antagonizer of Christians just so happened to have a vision so persuasive to him that he submitted his life to his former greatest enemy. But if he was actually mistaken and the vision wasn’t objective what’s even more surprising is that he convinced both himself and others that he was able to perform signs wonders and miracles according to 2nd Corinthians 12 and Romans too. What’s more is he mentioned the disciples also found they were able to perform miracles too. Finally, Paul’s knowledge of the more than 500 witnesses (of which he knew who were dead and alive and where to order them in the resurrection appearance chronology) seems very very convincing. Many say Mark is the earliest resurrection account and has none of the additions that built up over the years owing to why it’s the shortest and most bland. However, what’s ironic is that the earliest resurrection account has the most people mentioned and (with the more than 500) is most impressive. All of this is just some thoughts I’ve had and things that help me, but I have other evidences God has given me too. If you disagree with me I understand, God bless you still! Let’s just please foster mutual respect and love despite our differences and respect where one another may be coming from. Thanks if you read this far 😂❤️!

[wolfgerber]

Jesus is real .I was dead for 40 min and met the lord ..but I'm going to leaf it there .I don't fear death anymore .now I'm a Christian I love jesus christ .Prince of pease .

[biblicus]

Evidence of Jesus Resurrection:

1) Main Source: Bible
2) Jesus really died, and his body was placed in a tomb that was found to be empty
3) Empty tomb
4) Apparitions of Jesus after death
5) The Disciples believed that Jesus aviates resurrected
6) Testimony of Women
7) Conversion of Paul (Paul was a Pharisee, the opposite of the Sadducees, therefore, he believes in the Resurrection

(Extra-Biblical Sources)
Flavian Testimony & The Passing of Peregrinus

Archaeological Evidence:
1) Empty Tomb
2) Inscription of Nazareth (First half of the first century [41 after Christ]
3) Altar to the Unknown God (Where Paul preached the Resurrection, has an altar in a museum in Rome that is in Acts 17)

Jewish evidence:
1) Talmud
2) Toledot Yeshu. Both of them mention the Empty Tomb, they only claim that the disciples "have stolen the body of Jesus", Matthew 28: 12-15. Against facts there are no arguments!

[brucequinones]

Hi Cameron, please do an interview with J. Warner Wallace on this topic. :)

[FaithAndFact-MarkyMark]

By the way Jesus Rose up bodily from the dead 🙌
Great job Cameron

[Blablablahx]

Btw, Jesus rose bodily from the dead. ☺ God bless you guys and all who watched this. ♥

[gracearmor]

Btw Jesus rose bodily from the dead! Excellent video! 3 gentlemen! God bless brothers!

[stevenwilcox]

"By the way, Jesus rose bodily from the dead"

[nilsd.]

Whats the name of the book Gary mentions? The one with 18 non christian sources?
By the way, Jesus rose bodily from the dead.