Tomorrow is the "debate to end all debates" according to Bart Ehrman and Mike Licona. I don't know what kind of head I have going into tomorrow's event, but I need to ask some questions. So this is what I want to understand.
We are 2000 years past the story. How much confidence do you have that the story as written was authentic, and not creative writing?
Is the Resurrection all that makes Jesus matter? Was his life worth nothing if the Resurrection can't be proved?
I have no faith in the Bible as 100% historically accurate... Is there any other evidence to help support the Resurrection?
If the Resurrection can't be proved, does that mean that 2.3 Billion people can't have faith in it? What is faith, if certainty is required in the event of the Resurrection?
You are asking that we pick sides, but our identity has already landed us on a side (Christian vs Not Christian) . Can we really be impartial in a debate like this?
What percentage of that 2.3 Billion believe in a Resurrection because they don't want to burn in hell? (ie fire insurance)... It seems that most have been convinced to believe, not on evidence or proof, but because the alternative is ugly.
Is Christianity based on historical facts or theological truths?
How much of Christianity is about Jesus life, and how much is about his death and resurrection. If you can't embrace the latter (resurrection) , does the former still hold value for life?
It seems like the only way to believe in the Resurrection is to believe in an infallible, inerrant bible. Is this the case?
So many questions, and I doubt I want to plug up tomorrow's chat box with all of them. But I do want to aim a few in Mike's direction. I think I can pretty much agree with Bart's conclusions that the Resurrection is about faith, not evidence or historical fact. But maybe for Mike, faith isn't enough... so it has to be proven and believed to be historical. That is a stretch for me now. I will write more tomorrow about what I learned.
