Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate

by Gary Havermas; Antony Flew

Offers arguments from the Christian and atheist viewpoints concerning whether the Resurrection is an historical fact, and shares responses to the debate

Genres: Religion, Theology, Christianity, Christian

190 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1987

Reviews

[Don · Rating 3 out of 5]

As I remember it, Habermas pretty thoroughly kicks Flew's ass because Flew isn't familiar with the latest historical scholarship for/against the resurrection. Flew is pretty persuasive when making philosophical arguments for atheism, but he's in over his head here.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE FIRST (1985) DEBATE BETWEEN FLEW AND HABERMAS

Antony Garrard Newton Flew (1923-2010) was a British philosopher, and formerly a noteworthy advocate of atheism, until his 2004 change of mind (see 'There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind'). He wrote such influential books as 'God & Philosophy'; he also participated in debates/dialogues such as 'The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God,' 'Does God Exist?: The Great Debate,' etc.

Gary Habermas (born 1950) is Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University, and is a foremost evangelical apologist who has written many books such as 'The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,' 'The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ,' etc. These two philosophers also later met in debate in 2003 ('Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew) and 2004 ('Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew'). This book contains a transcript of the formal debate at Liberty University on May 2, 1985, followed by a dialogue the next day with Flew, Habermas, Terry L. Miethe, and W. David Beck. Finally, there are written responses to the debate by Wolfhart Pannenberg, Charles Hartshorne, and James I. Packer.

Habermas strongly endorsed the Shroud of Turin, saying that it "provides some empirically repeatable evidence for the Resurrection" (pg. 27-28); "it provides more strong evidence for Jesus' death" (pg. 69); but he also admits, "I will agree with you [Flew] that if the shroud can be legitimately carbon-dated, and it is not first century, that is going to have to be faced by anybody who says the shroud is authentic." (Pg. 119) [Habermas, of course, co-wrote two books on the Shroud: Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death & Resurrection of Jesus Christ and The Shroud and the Controversy; although in the latter book after the 1988 carbon testing of the Shroud he seemed less convinced, he still gave a "positive" lecture about it at the 2010 Evangelical Theological Society's annual meeting, that's currently posted on YouTube.]

In Flew's first rebuttal of Habermas, he said, "Dr. Habermas asked me whether I was an adherent of the swoon theory or any of these other accounts. No, I am not. My argument is that we are simply not in a position to reconstruct an account. I think the whole exercise of who moved the stone and so on is an impossible and misguided exercise because we have not got enough evidence of what actually happened in that undated year of the Easter events." (Pg. 33)

Later, Habermas argues, "you have to prove that Paul is saying that Jesus appeared to him in the same manner that he appeared to the disciples. I don't see that anywhere in Paul. I think Paul was arguing that Jesus literally appeared to him, period. I don't think Paul answers the question of whethe rhe could touch Jesus or whether he saw him eat. Paul just ignores those issues." (Pg. 57)

Habermas also admits, "there are approximately eighteen non-Christian writers who record more than one hundred events from the life, death, Resurrection of Jesus, and the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Now I suspect that Dr. Flew would say that they're comparatively late, because they are much later than the earlier creeds, and that's one reason why I prefer to use the core facts and the early creed in I Cor 15." (Pg. 65)

This book will be of keen relevance for anyone interested in Christian apologetics (including skeptics).

[JR Snow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Habermas was quite good. Flew was quite bad. Seemed like they ganged up on him, poor fellow. I commend the book (and the debates on youtube) but I think it's better that you go read Habermas's book instead. I love the way he argues for the resurrection. I think it spot on.

[Matthew Richey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Habermas argues well (nothing surprising), but Flew argues in circles and avoids the issues so badly that much of the argument is frustrating and feels like it's getting nowhere.

[Kelsea Meredith · Rating 5 out of 5]

And the Truth wins by a landslide!

[Hex · Rating 1 out of 5]

I couldn't stand finishing it. The sheer acrobatics and tricks employed by the apologists made me sick to my stomach. Plus, the "panel of judges" is comprised mostly of Christians/theologians. So, guess who was declared the "winner" of the debate by them? Hint: Not atheist Anthony Flew. This is a book that will satisfy Christians, most of whom are unfamiliar with basic logical concepts and unwilling to be truly skeptical.

[Bob Breckwoldt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Strange book. Flew presents a series of philosophical points. Habermas a series of historical points, which Flew has little interest in. The talk past each other. There is little getting to grips with the evidence. It comes across as an example of modern fundamentalist apologetics. Disappointing.

[Denise · Rating 2 out of 5]

Certainly an interesting read, not much of a debate. Falls apart a bit when Habermas' claims are looked into (12 known historical facts).

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? I still doubt it.