The evidence-based case for the resurrection is historically grounded, not merely faith-based

Mike distinguishes the scholarly historical case for the resurrection from a purely religious 'believe it because we say so' position

Five historically-accepted facts about the resurrection summarized as the acronym ALIVE

Mike introduces his mnemonic framework for presenting the resurrection evidence

First fact (A): Death by crucifixion — historically documented and generally agreed upon

First point of the ALIVE acronym

Third fact (I): Independent post-resurrection appearances of Jesus accepted by the vast majority of historians

Third point of the ALIVE acronym

Bart Ehrman's position: even if miracles happened, historians should not believe them

Examination of Bart Ehrman's approach to the resurrection

Barker's 'problem of history': miracles cannot be established from historical evidence — same Humean presupposition as Ehrman

Mike analyzes Barker's first objection

Barker's internal contradictions objection is a red herring — the five historical facts don't depend on biblical inerrancy

Mike's critique of Barker's third objection

Response to 'you can't use the Bible': the Bible is actually 66 documents by multiple authors over hundreds of years and is treated as historical documents by secular historians

Common objection addressed — that the resurrection case is circular because it relies on the Bible

Apologetics is not 'hijacking history' — the historical facts preexist apologetic use; it is skeptics who abuse historical disciplines

Response to the charge that Christian apologists are inappropriately co-opting history

Denying evidence for Jesus requires denying historical methodology used to establish other historical events

The logical consistency argument for accepting historical evidence for Jesus

Recommended resource: Mike Licona's book on the historical method and resurrection evidence

Q&A — responding to 'twisted wrench' who wants physical signs today

Multiple attestation as a confidence-builder: single-source claims generally receive lower historical confidence

Q&A — response to Doug's question about lowering confidence for single-source historical claims

Winger notes that skeptical scholars frequently assume biblical characters or events are fabricated while treating other ancient sources as valid by default. He characterizes this as an unjustified bias rather than sound historical methodology.

The Bible is 66 books by 40+ authors spanning over 1,500 years in multiple languages. This provides the kind of multiple independent attestation historians look for when establishing historical reliability. Historians prize multiple witnesses close in time to events — criteria the New Testament's 27 first-century documents meet.

Earlier 20th-century scholarship (especially the Jesus Seminar) treated the Gospels as myths, but current scholarly consensus has shifted. Graham Stanton (King's College London) and David Aune (Notre Dame) both argue the Gospels fit the genre of Greco-Roman biography (bios), which aimed to faithfully record historical fact even with theological purpose.

Aune's quote is cited to make the point that ancient biographers had obvious biases (encomium) yet were still 'firmly rooted in historical fact rather than literary fiction.' The Gospel writers' theological agenda does not disqualify them as historical sources; their choice of biographical conventions shows concern for what actually happened.

Treating the Gospels as ordinary historical documents and applying standard historical methodology, scholars (even skeptical ones) reach broad consensus on a set of historical facts about Jesus. These facts, assembled together, constitute a powerful cumulative case for the Gospel narrative.

Historians broadly agree that Jesus himself understood his mission in eschatological terms — that he was bringing in the kingdom of God. This is Jesus's own self-understanding as reconstructed by historical methodology.

In a Q&A exchange, Winger clarifies that verifying one claim in a text archaeologically does not automatically validate all other claims. Historical credibility is built incrementally, not wholesale. This is a guard against both over-claiming and the skeptical misuse of the argument.

Ancient historians' three-tiered hierarchy of sources: first-person, interrogated eyewitness, written account

Historical methodology framework used by ancient historians, applied to understanding Papias.

Luke 1:1-4 — Luke's prologue as an explicit historical/eyewitness methodology statement

Second major line of evidence: the Gospel of Luke's own self-description.

Argument from silence is a poor historical method: uniqueness to one Gospel does not discredit the account.

Responding to the implicit skeptical argument behind the Matthew 27 question.

Argument that Roman cultural attitudes toward Christians in 50-year span (first to early second century) remained consistent, so early second-century sources reflect first-century reality

Responding to the objection that 109/112 AD sources are too late to apply to the apostolic period

Upcoming debate with Matt Dillahunty on whether belief in the resurrection is reasonable; science is not the only method of knowing

Announcing the Dillahunty debate and defending historical methodology

Twitter response 6: Alien video recording of the resurrection — PhD-level absurdity

Sixth respondent, reportedly holding a PhD, demands alien video recording as extraordinary evidence.

Problem 4: The slogan results in ignoring good evidence via double standards and special pleading

Fourth of five critiques.

Evidence can overcome even extremely low prior probabilities — the question is "did it happen?" not "what are the odds?"

Mike's positive epistemological alternative to the slogan's approach.

Methodological principle: dismissing miracle claims in historical sources reflects worldview bias, not following the evidence

Responding to the claim that miracle claims in historical sources can be safely dismissed

Richard Carrier's claim that all historians have concluded the criteria of authenticity are invalid is false — most historians still embrace the criteria

Audience Q about the methodology of validating historicity of Christ

Licona published a critique of the Keith/Le Donne volume in the Bulletin for Biblical Research, arguing scholars are too pessimistic about the criteria

Licona's scholarly engagement with the debate over historical criteria

John Dominic Crossan in debate with Licona affirmed the use of criteria — demonstrating that most historians still rely on them

Licona's debate with Crossan as evidence of continuing scholarly use of criteria

The criteria of authenticity are not magical — they are common-sense principles: prioritize early sources, eyewitness reports, unsympathetic sources, multiple independent attestation

Explaining what the criteria of authenticity actually are

Advice to those influenced by Richard Carrier: read other skeptical scholars — Ehrman, Lüdemann, Casey — who have proper training in historical Jesus scholarship

Practical guidance for those following Carrier's mythicist arguments

Licona's book Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? required classicist review to avoid errors in Plutarch material — illustrating disciplinary boundaries

Personal example of the importance of disciplinary specialization

1 Corinthians 15:3-8: the apostles argued historically for the resurrection by listing eyewitnesses

NT case study showing apostles using evidential showing to establish what they already knew