Full Debate MP3 Audio here (1hr 45min)
Enjoy.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Michael Licona vs Shane Puckett Debate: Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
Full Debate MP3 Audio here (1hr 45min)
Enjoy.
Topics:
debate
,
michael licona
,
resurrection
Blog Archive
-
▼
2012
(413)
-
▼
January
(35)
- Terminology Tuesday: Counterfactuals
- Scholar Interview: Peter J. Williams
- C.S. Lewis on Motivation
- Book Review: The Christ Files by John Dickson
- Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (01/20 - 01/27)
- Read Along: Christian Apologetics Ch20
- Ehrman's Problem: A Critique by Clay Jones
- Michael Licona vs Shane Puckett Debate: Did Jesus ...
- Terminology Tuesday: Foundationalism
- Interview with Apologetics UK
- J.P. Moreland on the Testimony of the Disciples
- Book Review: Fabricating Jesus by Craig Evans
- Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (01/13 - 01/20)
- Read Along: Christian Apologetics Ch19
- William Lane Craig's Cambridge Union Society Debate
- Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? Audio an...
- Terminology Tuesday: Divine Action
- Interview on Intelligent Design: Casey Luskin
- William Lane Craig on Results
- Book Review: Christian Ethics by Norman Geisler
- Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (01/06 - 01/13)
- Read Along: Christian Apologetics Ch18
- Can Science Inform Our Understanding of God? MP3 S...
- Best Selling Apologetics Books of 2011
- Terminology Tuesday: Necessary Truths
- New Testament Scholar Interview: Daniel B. Wallace
- Darrell Bock on the Bible
- Book Review: Is God Just a Human Invention? And Se...
- Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (12/30 - 01/06)
- Read Along: Christian Apologetics Ch17
- Doubt: RZIM Conference Audio
- 10 Pitfalls of the Foolish Apologist
- Terminology Tuesday: Criticism
- Craig Keener Interview on Miracles
- C.S. Lewis on the Meaning of Morality
-
▼
January
(35)
12 comments :
I find it odd that Shane focused so heavily on the aspects of rhetorical speech and writing in the first part of his opening speech... only to completely disregard what he said about that when he was reading the gospel accounts.
He also spoke heavily on the aspect of falsely filling in missing information during his opening speech... only to go on to fill in the information not present in the different Gospel accounts. He seemed to falsely assume that the account contradicted when all that took place was that they gave less or more information at some points.
It appears that he defeated his own case in the beginning of his opening speech as he went against his very own caution.
I am curious to know what his sources were for his case of other religious figures being similar to Jesus. His presentation and lack of sourcing urges me to share this:
William Lane Craig on Jesus and Pagan Mythology
One thing I did notice though is that Mike Licona really did seem to be nervous and intimidated by the stature of his opponent. He was audibly hesitant and seemed to be making unusual mistakes of losing his place here and there in his presentation.
I listened to the debate at 1.4x speed and at that speed I thought this was Mike's best debate, in the past he's seemed nervous to me... but that was at normal speed. Despite Shane's debate credentials I couldn't help but feel he was out of his league on this subject.
It seems strange to me that the person defending the historicity of the resurrection is apparently a historian and apologist, whereas the person arguing against the historicity of the resurrection is mostly qualified in competitive debating, not in history or Biblical studies. Is this a strategy on Licona's point, to look more knowledgeable in the debate? The real goal is to figure out the truth, right? I would want scholars on both sides in order to achieve that.
I agree with NFQ, at least insofar as I don't give a hoot about Puckett's debate credentials. Debates should be about the exchange of facts and ideas, not scoring points. Neither Mike Licona nor Richard Carrier are particularly slick orators, but that didn't prevent them from having what has to be the most comprehensive debate ever conducted on the resurrection.
I'm sorry, but I had to laugh at that last slide, which was apparently trying to disprove that Paul saw Jesus. It has a picture of Jesus with his hair down to his shoulders, then the following:
"Is this Jesus?
• 1 Corinthians 11:14 'If a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him.'
• Paul wrote this.
• We don't know what Paul saw."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shoulder length hair would not have been considered long by their standards.
NFQ and Kyle, I would approve of that seconded motion as well. I am not quite sure why the debate would take place with that Puckett. I don't think that Licona choose that opponent, I believe the debate was set up by third party sources who asked both gentlemen to participate in the debate. Licona may have just been eager to debate regardless of who it was without intending to seem "more knowledgeable" than his opponent.
Thanks for your comments on the debate, everyone! Shane was chosen by the church. To be transparent, I was nervous going into the debate because of Shane's stature as a champion debater. But, as with many other debates, once the debate started, I felt pretty relaxed. If I came across as being a little nervous, it's probably because I knew there were only 4 crossfire periods of 5 mins each and I was watching the clock very carefully in order to discuss as much as possible during the allotted time.
Are these debates blocked in the UK? I keep getting a "you don't have permission to access this file" error.
Has anyone ever played tennis against a beginner? Invariably, the level of your game will deteriorate. Licona clearly won this debate, however, it’s unfortunate that Mike spent so much time explaining methods, correcting histories, and keeping the trajectory of the arguments on target. I struggled to keep my finger off of the forward button.
Jonthan Deundian
Sorry, Anonymous...
There is a server issue presently that we are working to resolve.
@ Mike Licona
Thank you for clearing up the "how did this debate" happen question. Did you have an opportunity to speak with Shane in more detail after the debate to clear up some of the worse than factually incorrect statements he propagated? If so, how did that go?
I was amazed that a champion debater used a clear cut red herring fallacy. Mike was right to call him out on it. Mike didnt appeal to the gospels in his argument.
Post a Comment
Thanks for taking the time to comment. By posting your comment you are agreeing to the comment policy.