Analysis Of He Is Risen

He Is Risen After watching the debate between Professor Licona and Professor Martin, I have come to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the grave on the third day and that this is proven by not only theological theories, but also by historical facts. As Licona says, this is extremely crucial to the Gospel in every way. If Jesus didn’t really rise from the grave, it makes Jesus a false prophet and disproves Christianity; making our faith worthless (1 Corinthians 15). This would be disastrous for the world considering 32 percent of the world population profess to following Christ. In order to prove Christ’s resurrection Licona separates his argument into two parts: Facts and Methods. Dr. Licona starts out by saying that he will prove Christ’s resurrection with only historical facts. He gives five main factual criteria to prove his point. Through these points he focuses on the historical testimonies of Paul and other disciples of Jesus. The first fact is that Paul was an eye witness who claims and is believed to be one. This is shown in Galatians 1, when Paul says, “For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a

Licona that Jesus really did rise from the grave and that it can be proved historically. Contrary to Martin’s beliefs, I believe that if you discredit the past, the future doesn’t matter. Overall, Martin was all over the place in his arguments and nit-picked points about the gospels without doing sufficient research into their context. On the flip side, I agree with Dr. Licona’s five facts and four methods. I especially enjoyed the fourth fact that talks about the improbability of multiple hallucinations, because I have never considered that. Overall, I am extremely jubilant that I have come out of this debate with more confidence that my Lord and Savior really did rise from the grave and that I now am more sufficiently equipped to debate people trying to discredit the