resurrection ?

All content tagged with this topic across every database — articles, Mike Winger ideas, and verse entries on one screen.

...more

Q&A — Do they teach against the non-negotiables (Trinity, grace through faith, virgin birth, etc.)? Not explicitly — most are present but the Trinity and virgin birth are rarely discussed

Bill Johnson's Theology and Movement Examined Biblically.

Video framing: not just presenting resurrection evidence but specifically examining how skeptics dodge it

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Annual wave of low-scholarship anti-resurrection media (e.g., 'Lost Tomb of Jesus', Joaquin Phoenix Mary Magdalene film, Da Vinci Code)

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

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

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

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

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

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

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Second fact (L): Women/ladies found the tomb empty — criterion of embarrassment supports authenticity

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

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

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Fourth fact (V): Violence endured by the Apostles — dramatic transformation from hiding to dying for their message

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Fifth fact (E): Enemies of Christ converted — specifically James the brother of Jesus and Paul the Apostle

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

The resurrection best explains all five ALIVE facts; other explanations must account for all five

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Swoon theory: Jesus only appeared dead, was not actually dead, and recovered in the tomb

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Twin theory: Jesus had a twin who was either crucified or who appeared after the crucifixion

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Mass hallucination theory: the appearances of Jesus were mass hallucinations rather than physical encounters

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Spiritual resurrection theory: Jesus rose spiritually but not bodily

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Wrong tomb theory: disciples went to the wrong tomb, found it empty, and triggered the resurrection belief

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Missing body theory: Jesus's body was never in the claimed tomb or went missing, explaining the empty tomb

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Conspiracy theory: the disciples deliberately stole or fabricated the empty tomb story

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Swoon theory refuted by facts A, I, and V: the description of crucifixion, the nature of post-resurrection appearances, and the disciples' bold willingness to die

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Twin theory refuted by facts L, I, and E: empty tomb implies no second body; intimate companions would have known; family members converted

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Mass hallucination theory refuted by fact I: hallucinations are individual, not shared; 1 Corinthians 15 cites 500 simultaneous witnesses

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Spiritual resurrection theory refuted by the meaning of the word 'resurrection' in first-century Jewish context — N.T. Wright's scholarship

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Wrong tomb theory refuted by facts I, V, and E: independent appearances, violence endured, and enemy conversions cannot be explained by a navigational error

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Missing body and conspiracy theories both fail to explain facts I, V, and E; conspiracy adds knowingly dying for a lie

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

The resurrection is the one rational explanation that accounts for all five ALIVE facts

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

David Hume's argument: miracles are impossible, therefore no testimony can ever establish a miracle

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

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

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

In his debate with William Lane Craig, Ehrman granted all five ALIVE facts but denied any historian can postulate miracles

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

After the Craig debate, Ehrman changed position and now denies the burial — Mike argues this is ad hoc motivated reasoning

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Richard Carrier is a mythicist — he denies Jesus existed at all, a fringe position among credentialed scholars

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Carrier teaches that in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul describes events that occurred in outer space — a cosmic/celestial resurrection rather than an earthly one

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Carrier's theory that the disciples were a mass gathering of schizophrenic individuals prone to shared hallucinations

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Dan Barker's four reasons to reject the resurrection: problem of history, possible natural explanations, internal Bible contradictions, legendary growth

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Barker won't commit to a specific natural explanation because none can withstand scrutiny

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

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

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Barker's legendary growth argument cherry-picks data — each Gospel sometimes has more miraculous content, sometimes less

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Matt Dillahunty's debate strategy: avoid taking a position, only attack others' positions; leans toward mythicism

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Dillahunty refuses to name an alternate explanation for the five facts; retreats to 'I don't know' as an elite epistemic position

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Dillahunty says he cannot think of any evidence that would convince him the resurrection happened — Mike calls this blind faith skepticism

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Sam Harris: no evidence — including multiple contemporaneous eyewitnesses — would be sufficient to establish the resurrection

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Core pattern across all skeptics: a priori rejection of the resurrection regardless of evidence — Mike calls this blind faith

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

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

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

The 'they're just Christians' dismissal commits the genetic fallacy — disqualifying scholars by association with their conclusions

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

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

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

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

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Comparison to other miracle claims fails because they don't have equivalent evidence — not all miracle claims are equal

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Comparing Jesus's resurrection to Harry Potter is intellectually incoherent — a category error that reveals the accuser as a caricature

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

1 Corinthians 15:3-7 is the earliest resurrection record — within five years of the crucifixion and agreed upon by over 90% of scholars

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Five years is not enough time for legendary development — the 500-witness claim makes legendary embellishment implausible

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

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

Skeptics Respond To The Evidence For The Resurrection of Jesus

Kay, I tried posting my comments on Mike’s site a second time, and if I read the message that popped up, I think it went through but will be posted later. And I think your are correct in your assessm...

Hello K, Men do not carry a different sin nature than women do. We are all born in sin and all of us have inherited the sin nature. This sin nature comes from Adam through the father’s seed. Since ...

truthseeker, You said: “Likewise, I think it cannot be said from Genesis that we have a sin nature that Adam gave us. I can no more see explicit verses saying Adam gave us a sin nature than I can see...

Hello Peter, Thanks for your comments. You asked why the biblical references are automatically linked to ESV. My son graciously gave me space on his site for my blog and he said he had found an add-o...

Hi Michael, You ask a great question about the creation of animals. First of all in answer to your question, the issue is not about animals ONLY being created after Adam. The Hebrew is specific in th...

Hi Paula, You said: “Since non-YECs agree that science keeps changing its mind on what the facts are, science is therefore unreliable. The fact is that true science is not the issue at all, but int...

Cheryl, thanks for your blogs. I realize my comments are years after your writing, but I’m glad your writing is still here because I am struggling with these Pauline things taken out of context too. ...

Paula, but it is interesting that the seventh day does not have a morning and evening statement as do the others. Which I do think indicate that this rest lasted more than just one day. I understand ...

Hello Dennis, Thanks for stopping by and providing your comments. You said: > “Moore does not mean (nor does anyone one else I know who uses the terms “spiritual warfare”) that this is an in-hous...

It is interesting that you quote Genesis 3:16 as if God were commanding Adam to rule over Eve. Yet this is a prophecy not a command. And if it was a command, then why did God give it to Eve and not Ad...

It is interesting that you quote Genesis 3:16 as if God were commanding Adam to rule over Eve. Yet this is a prophecy not a command. And if it was a command, then why did God give it to Eve and not Ad...

Hi Kristen, Here is my issue. I certainly recognize the Col 1 verses (incidentally, take a look at the NLT translation) but I don’t know how to take it. John 1 clearly says that the Word was the crea...

*So what you mean is that the Word is called the “future” Christ?* In a way. I mean that to the Godhead, in Their unbounded Now, the Son was the Christ from the moment when They planned the Incarnat...

Don, Here is what the Apostles thought was the qualification of one of the 12 Apostles: Act 1:21 “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus w...

Charis, You said: I am interpreting “the childbirthing” as Christ being formed in her- not salvation, but sanctification. But Charis, remember that Paul said “She will be saved if…” This shows that...

Charis, There is no conflict between the written Word and the Spirit; they both come from God and are to be respected as His Word. They are both necessary, to prevent gullibility on one hand and cold...

Charis, I think you may have misunderstood what I meant in my blog about discipline and balance. The idea is not that we can get too much of the Word, but that we should have that kind of attitude to...

This was a final e-mail I send to Gerald, just one more final plee so to speak. Two feet, Two Feet to kick dust off…..Two final e-mails this being the second and final! Pray He sees the Error of his w...

While I consider the issue of the Trinity and the subordination of the Son (as to the role of the Son) to be a serious issue and one that we need to address, I also would have a very difficult time sa...

I thought this was an interesting essay, but with generally weak or unconvincing arguments throughout. Much of the text is confounded by the writer’s inability to recognise and address key paradigms ...