What do you think?
Rate this book
Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew
In 2004 philosopher Antony Flew, one of the world's most prominent atheists, publicly acknowledged that he had become persuaded of the existence of God. Not long before that, in 2003, Flew and Christian philosopher Gary Habermas debated at a Veritas Forum at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Habermas, perhaps the world's leading expert on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, made the case for rational belief on the basis of the reliability of the evidence. Flew argued for alternative understandings of the evidence presented. For two-and-a-half decades Flew and Habermas have been in friendly dialogue about the plausibility of the resurrection and the existence of God. This book presents the full content of their third and final debate, as well as transcripts of the Q & A session with the audience afterward. Also included are a 2004 conversation between Habermas and Flew shortly after Flew's much-publicized change of position, as well as editor David Baggett's assessment and analysis of the full history of Habermas and Flew's interactions. Here is your opportunity to listen in on a conversation with two of the greatest thinkers of our era about one of the most pivotal events in human history. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. And decide for yourself whether it's believable that a man could rise from the dead.
185 pages, Paperback
First published April 29, 2009
18 people are currently reading
292 people want to read
About the author
Gary R. Habermas
62 books172 followersGary R. Habermas was born just outside Detroit, Michigan in 1950. Although he was raised in a Christian home and attended a German Baptist Church, he began having serious doubts about Christianity. For more than ten years, he faced uncertainty about key Christian claims and searched other religious and non-religious systems, especially naturalism. His studies centered chiefly on investigating various world views, occasionally getting close to what he thought might be the proper approach. During this time, as he explains, "The last thing I did at night was recall what I had learned that day to further my search. Early the next morning, it seems that the first thing that came to my mind was, 'Where did I end my studies last night?'" This continued for several agonizing years.
Habermas' interest in the field of apologetics began early in his search when he realized that some religions made claims that could be either verified or falsified. He searched the various religious systems to ascertain if such claims were verifiable. After several years of study, he concluded that very few religious claims could be substantiated. Habermas concluded that even Christianity suffered in this sense. While certainly having more evidential considerations than other religions, there always seemed to be a reason why the argument could not be finalized. While Habermas conducted detailed studies of creation, fulfilled prophecy, archaeological discoveries, and the general reliability of the Old and New Testaments, he constantly asked if there were any "clinching" arguments.
Habermas especially studied the notion that Eastern metaphysics were confirmed by modern physics, as well as the claims made on behalf of various other holy books. He reached the conclusion that, while religious beliefs could be held by faith, they usually lacked great evidence and could not be "proven" to be true.
Habermas' search frequently took the form of debating with various adherents of non-Christian as well as Christian views. He told practitioners from both camps that their beliefs were not as grounded as they would like to believe. He especially recalls one encounter where an exasperated Christian told him that he was filled with demons! Once his mother called to see how he was doing, and he announced that he thought he was close to becoming a Buddhist, his latest research interest.
During this time, one subject began to appeal to Habermas more than any other. He realized that if Jesus had been raised from the dead, this would go a long way toward arguing that Christianity was true. He also studied the founders of the major religious traditions, along with some lesser-known figures, to see if there were other claims that someone had been raised from the dead. He was especially interested in whether there was any historical or other evidence for any such teachings. Thirteen hundred note cards later, he was well on the way to a lifetime of being "hooked" on the subject of Jesus' resurrection. Little did he know that his early years of study on this subject would begin his fascination with the topic that has never lessened.
Habermas continued his search as an undergraduate student at Tyndale College, graduating in 1972 with three majors and three minors. Foremost on his mind was still the question of whether it could be known if there was any basis for answering his religious questions. Habermas went straight to graduate school at the University of Detroit. Studying philosophical theology and the world religions, he earned an M.A. a year later, in 1973. After taking a year off, he pursued a Ph.D. at Michigan State University, graduating two years later (1976), after keeping up a torrid study schedule.
Studying relevant historical, philosophical, and religious questions, Habermas proposed an historical study of Jesus’ resurrection (what else?) for his Ph.D. dissertation. The topic was approved by his committee, but he was told specifically that he could not
Habermas' interest in the field of apologetics began early in his search when he realized that some religions made claims that could be either verified or falsified. He searched the various religious systems to ascertain if such claims were verifiable. After several years of study, he concluded that very few religious claims could be substantiated. Habermas concluded that even Christianity suffered in this sense. While certainly having more evidential considerations than other religions, there always seemed to be a reason why the argument could not be finalized. While Habermas conducted detailed studies of creation, fulfilled prophecy, archaeological discoveries, and the general reliability of the Old and New Testaments, he constantly asked if there were any "clinching" arguments.
Habermas especially studied the notion that Eastern metaphysics were confirmed by modern physics, as well as the claims made on behalf of various other holy books. He reached the conclusion that, while religious beliefs could be held by faith, they usually lacked great evidence and could not be "proven" to be true.
Habermas' search frequently took the form of debating with various adherents of non-Christian as well as Christian views. He told practitioners from both camps that their beliefs were not as grounded as they would like to believe. He especially recalls one encounter where an exasperated Christian told him that he was filled with demons! Once his mother called to see how he was doing, and he announced that he thought he was close to becoming a Buddhist, his latest research interest.
During this time, one subject began to appeal to Habermas more than any other. He realized that if Jesus had been raised from the dead, this would go a long way toward arguing that Christianity was true. He also studied the founders of the major religious traditions, along with some lesser-known figures, to see if there were other claims that someone had been raised from the dead. He was especially interested in whether there was any historical or other evidence for any such teachings. Thirteen hundred note cards later, he was well on the way to a lifetime of being "hooked" on the subject of Jesus' resurrection. Little did he know that his early years of study on this subject would begin his fascination with the topic that has never lessened.
Habermas continued his search as an undergraduate student at Tyndale College, graduating in 1972 with three majors and three minors. Foremost on his mind was still the question of whether it could be known if there was any basis for answering his religious questions. Habermas went straight to graduate school at the University of Detroit. Studying philosophical theology and the world religions, he earned an M.A. a year later, in 1973. After taking a year off, he pursued a Ph.D. at Michigan State University, graduating two years later (1976), after keeping up a torrid study schedule.
Studying relevant historical, philosophical, and religious questions, Habermas proposed an historical study of Jesus’ resurrection (what else?) for his Ph.D. dissertation. The topic was approved by his committee, but he was told specifically that he could not
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 1, 2016
Summary: A history of the debates and friendship between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, a transcript of a 2003 conversation on the resurrection between these two, a discussion of Flew's subsequent change from a belief in atheism to a kind of deism, and concluding discussions on the evidences and challenges to the idea of the resurrection of Jesus.
For Christians, Easter is actually the most important holiday of the year. It is the day we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, which the apostle Paul argues is the one historical reality on which Christianity stands or falls. In other words, Christianity is falsifiable if the resurrection is disproved, or at least suspect if a credible case cannot be put forward that such an incredible event took place.
This book, edited by David Baggett explores that case and the counter-claims that might be put forward with a section in the middle exploring the journey of one of the participants, Antony Flew from atheism to a deistic form of theism. Baggett introduces the book narrating the history of the growing friendship between Habermas and Flew and the history of debates between the two over a nearly twenty year period, culminating with the debate at Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo in 2003.
Part One then is a transcript of that debate, including audience questions. Habermas begins by asserting a list of twelve known historical facts for which he would contend that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation. These are:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. The death of Jesus caused the disciples to despair and lose hope, believing that his life was ended.
4. Although not as widely accepted, many scholars hold that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
5. The disciples had experiences they believed were the literal appearances of the risen Christ.
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection.
7. This message was the center of preaching in the early church.
8. This message was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus was died and was buried shortly before.
9. As a result of this teaching, the church was born and grew.
10. Sunday became the primary day of worship.
11. James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also believed that he had seen the resurrected Jesus.
12. A few years later, Paul was converted by an experience that he likewise believed to be an appearance of the risen Christ.
Flew, who at one time was the foremost proponent of atheism, and still an avowed atheist at the point of this debate then engages these facts and the inferences from them. He questions the death, burial and most importantly the belief of the disciples that they had seen literal appearances of Jesus. Habermas invokes medical research on the physical effects of crucifixion on the body that can lead to swift death by asphyxia, the multiple testimonies to the burial of Jesus without contrary testimony and the witnesses to the empty tomb including the improbable citing of women as the first witnesses. Then he shows the improbability of mass hallucination, which anything other than hoax or literal appearance would require. It is striking that, at the end, Flew acknowledges that there are good rational grounds for the belief in the resurrection, although for him it remained incredible given his beliefs about the world.
Part Two begins with a conversation between Habermas and Flew about his journey from atheism to a deistic form of theism. The conversation was striking to me for two things. One was the intellectual engagement between these two men who had become friends. The other was the importance of design and fine-tuning arguments in persuading Flew to embrace deism. The second part of this section is Gary Habermas review of Flew's book, There Is a God. Perhaps most fascinating is the distinction of Flew's that Habermas notes between philosophical and scientific evidence. Plainly, scientific evidence figured more highly for Flew. It was also significant that a major barrier to embracing Christian theism for Flew was the problem of evil and suffering. Habermas contends that a free will defense may answer this but Flew believed this required a prior belief in revelation, a point of contention between the two. [It should be noted that Antony Flew died April 8, 2010, still embracing a deistic stance.]
The last part of the book returns to evidences and challenges to these evidences including ten philosophical concerns not addressed directly in the debate. The very end of this section and the appendix deals with the use of Bayes Theory of probability. I found this most interesting as it has been invoked in a number of discussions with atheists, usually by atheists, arguing that the probabilities of God's existence, or the resurrection fail to reach a threshold where belief is warranted. I will admit to not fully understanding the mathematics behind this argument, but found that the author confirmed my suspicion of the arbitrary character of assigning probabilities, which often reflect a priori beliefs rather than evidence per se'. I think more work needs to be done in answering this line of objection, which on the face of it sounds persuasive because of its quantitative nature.
As I noted at the beginning, the resurrection is essentially the lynch pin of Christian faith. For the person struggling with doubts or considering the credibility of the resurrection claim, this is an excellent first book, because it reflects a real conversation between two people with opposing views. We see the intellectual honesty of Antony Flew, who had the courage to change his beliefs when that was where the evidence took him. In the public and private conversations between Habermas and Flew we are given a model of dialogue and inquiry that is substantive, charitable, and intellectually honest in a public square nearly bereft of such conversations.
For Christians, Easter is actually the most important holiday of the year. It is the day we celebrate the resurrection of Jesus, which the apostle Paul argues is the one historical reality on which Christianity stands or falls. In other words, Christianity is falsifiable if the resurrection is disproved, or at least suspect if a credible case cannot be put forward that such an incredible event took place.
This book, edited by David Baggett explores that case and the counter-claims that might be put forward with a section in the middle exploring the journey of one of the participants, Antony Flew from atheism to a deistic form of theism. Baggett introduces the book narrating the history of the growing friendship between Habermas and Flew and the history of debates between the two over a nearly twenty year period, culminating with the debate at Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo in 2003.
Part One then is a transcript of that debate, including audience questions. Habermas begins by asserting a list of twelve known historical facts for which he would contend that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation. These are:
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. The death of Jesus caused the disciples to despair and lose hope, believing that his life was ended.
4. Although not as widely accepted, many scholars hold that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was discovered to be empty just a few days later.
5. The disciples had experiences they believed were the literal appearances of the risen Christ.
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of his death and resurrection.
7. This message was the center of preaching in the early church.
8. This message was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus was died and was buried shortly before.
9. As a result of this teaching, the church was born and grew.
10. Sunday became the primary day of worship.
11. James, who had been a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he also believed that he had seen the resurrected Jesus.
12. A few years later, Paul was converted by an experience that he likewise believed to be an appearance of the risen Christ.
Flew, who at one time was the foremost proponent of atheism, and still an avowed atheist at the point of this debate then engages these facts and the inferences from them. He questions the death, burial and most importantly the belief of the disciples that they had seen literal appearances of Jesus. Habermas invokes medical research on the physical effects of crucifixion on the body that can lead to swift death by asphyxia, the multiple testimonies to the burial of Jesus without contrary testimony and the witnesses to the empty tomb including the improbable citing of women as the first witnesses. Then he shows the improbability of mass hallucination, which anything other than hoax or literal appearance would require. It is striking that, at the end, Flew acknowledges that there are good rational grounds for the belief in the resurrection, although for him it remained incredible given his beliefs about the world.
Part Two begins with a conversation between Habermas and Flew about his journey from atheism to a deistic form of theism. The conversation was striking to me for two things. One was the intellectual engagement between these two men who had become friends. The other was the importance of design and fine-tuning arguments in persuading Flew to embrace deism. The second part of this section is Gary Habermas review of Flew's book, There Is a God. Perhaps most fascinating is the distinction of Flew's that Habermas notes between philosophical and scientific evidence. Plainly, scientific evidence figured more highly for Flew. It was also significant that a major barrier to embracing Christian theism for Flew was the problem of evil and suffering. Habermas contends that a free will defense may answer this but Flew believed this required a prior belief in revelation, a point of contention between the two. [It should be noted that Antony Flew died April 8, 2010, still embracing a deistic stance.]
The last part of the book returns to evidences and challenges to these evidences including ten philosophical concerns not addressed directly in the debate. The very end of this section and the appendix deals with the use of Bayes Theory of probability. I found this most interesting as it has been invoked in a number of discussions with atheists, usually by atheists, arguing that the probabilities of God's existence, or the resurrection fail to reach a threshold where belief is warranted. I will admit to not fully understanding the mathematics behind this argument, but found that the author confirmed my suspicion of the arbitrary character of assigning probabilities, which often reflect a priori beliefs rather than evidence per se'. I think more work needs to be done in answering this line of objection, which on the face of it sounds persuasive because of its quantitative nature.
As I noted at the beginning, the resurrection is essentially the lynch pin of Christian faith. For the person struggling with doubts or considering the credibility of the resurrection claim, this is an excellent first book, because it reflects a real conversation between two people with opposing views. We see the intellectual honesty of Antony Flew, who had the courage to change his beliefs when that was where the evidence took him. In the public and private conversations between Habermas and Flew we are given a model of dialogue and inquiry that is substantive, charitable, and intellectually honest in a public square nearly bereft of such conversations.
August 11, 2011
Given the two names on the front of this book, I was initially intimidated at the prospect of picking it up for fear I would be subjected to a pedantic debate between two intellectuals using terms and ideas on par with their intelligence. To my surprise, this was not the case.
Did the Resurrection Happen? by Gary Habermas and Antony Flew read less like an advanced theological textbook and more like a conversation. This is, of course, because two-thirds of this book were originally conversations. The book is divided into three parts, the first of which was basically a transcript of a debate between Habermas and Flew that took place back in 2003 during an event held by the Veritas Forum. This section was an engaging read and altogether too short.
The second part was also a transcribed conversation between Habermas and Flew (long time friends) regarding Flew's journey to theism, an event that sent shock-waves through both sides of the atheism/theism debate. Through both of these sections I was pleasantly surprised to find the conversational style a very accessible read a la Lee Strobel (minus the hint of feigned scepticism).
If one section seemed cumbersome and out of place, it was the third. Written by the editor, David Baggett, it was actually longer than either of the first two sections. Unfortunately, it fell victim to the very intellectual inaccessibility who's absence made the first two sections so enjoyable.
While this book won't be convincing to the most hardline skeptics, Christians and the doubters and seekers of Flew's sort will find this a very accessable read.
Did the Resurrection Happen? by Gary Habermas and Antony Flew read less like an advanced theological textbook and more like a conversation. This is, of course, because two-thirds of this book were originally conversations. The book is divided into three parts, the first of which was basically a transcript of a debate between Habermas and Flew that took place back in 2003 during an event held by the Veritas Forum. This section was an engaging read and altogether too short.
The second part was also a transcribed conversation between Habermas and Flew (long time friends) regarding Flew's journey to theism, an event that sent shock-waves through both sides of the atheism/theism debate. Through both of these sections I was pleasantly surprised to find the conversational style a very accessible read a la Lee Strobel (minus the hint of feigned scepticism).
If one section seemed cumbersome and out of place, it was the third. Written by the editor, David Baggett, it was actually longer than either of the first two sections. Unfortunately, it fell victim to the very intellectual inaccessibility who's absence made the first two sections so enjoyable.
While this book won't be convincing to the most hardline skeptics, Christians and the doubters and seekers of Flew's sort will find this a very accessable read.
July 31, 2012
I highly recommend this short volume. It begins with a generous open dialogue between Gary Habermas, one of the finest defenders of an historical-centered apologetics, and the brilliant philosopher and skeptic Anthony Flew. All the important philosophical ands historical questions are touched on in a light but deftly concise manner. The dialogue is rounded out by two essays: a biographical sketch by Habermas on Flew's conversion to rationalist deism from atheism; and another by David Baggett that demonstrates the connections between skeptical historicism and the problem of evil.
April 19, 2012
thus far mainly circular arguments
September 17, 2024
THE THIRD AND FINAL 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 had also met in debate in 1985 and 2003 (see: 'Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate' and 'Resurrected?: An Atheist and Theist Dialogue'). This third debate took place at California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, on January 3, 2003.
Habermas points out, "I think the best evidence we have for the resurrection is the apostle Paul and... even people like Michael Martin and G.A. Wells concede that Paul was an eyewitness to what he believed was a resurrection appearance of Jesus... The same goes for James, the brother of Jesus. He was also an unbeliever during Jesus' life. That's conceded by virtually all scholars... we have Paul's testimony first-hand... It's rare to find any New Testament scholars who deny Pauline authorship for 1 Corinthians. Paul states a couple of times that he saw the resurrected Jesus... not only is Paul giving us his own experience, he's our best window on the other apostles and what they were preaching regarding Jesus' resurrection." (Pg. 34)
They have the following exchange: "AF: We have a whole lot of people who think they saw him... they were grief-related appearances... ostensible appearances. Yes, what seemed to them to be appearances... GH: Okay, so basically if you're going to say grief visions, you're saying hallucinations. AF: If you'd like, yes." (Pg. 39)
Later, we read: "GH: Is your present view unfalsifiable?... Your unbelief specifically in the resurrection... If we have our list of historical facts and every time you bring up a natural possibility, each one seems to be opposed by a number of rejoinders, at what point do you say that it begins to look like a real resurrection? Or conversely, at what point would you say that you view is not falsifiable? AF: I think the only honest answer is that I don't know. I am not sure...
"I think the unfalsifiability of UNBELIEF is somehow a different problem than the unfalsifiability of a BELIEF. GH: But if you can't falsify your own view, and if there is no probable rejoinder to the resurrection, and you're left with, 'Well, I don't want to believe it anyway,' of course that's your right." (Pg. 44-45)
Habermas discusses near-death experiences [which he dealt with at length in Immortality: The Other Side of Death]: "take a highly evidenced NDE where someone recalls data during an EEG that is flat for three hours, and they report things they saw during that time, although their brain apparently wasn't working... NDSs say, 'Wow, this world might be different from what we think it is.' " (Pg. 46)
Flew admits in response to a question, "you want me to respond to Pascal's wager. I'm afraid that at this time in the evening I don't feel fit to do so. I have recently written some second thoughts about this wager, but I don't recall them right now." (Pg. 61) When another questioner asks what happened to Jesus' body if he wasn't resurrected, he replied, "I don't know. I don't pretend to know. Because i don't think we can be in a position to know that the body was deposited in a tomb, though of course the opponents of Christianity wanted to find the body, didn't they? They wanted to find a body that hadn't risen." (Pg. 62)
In a later exchange, we read: "AF: as a schoolboy of fifteen years, it first appeared to me that the thesis that the universe was created and is sustained by a Being of infinite power and goodness is flatly incompatible with the occurrence of massive undeniable and undenied evils in that universe... GH: In your view, then, God hasn't done anything about evil. AF: No, not at all, other than producing a lot of it." (Pg. 77)
All of the dialogues between Flew and Habermas are fascinating reading, and will be of tremendous interest to students of apologetics, or of the philosophy of religion.
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 had also met in debate in 1985 and 2003 (see: 'Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate' and 'Resurrected?: An Atheist and Theist Dialogue'). This third debate took place at California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, on January 3, 2003.
Habermas points out, "I think the best evidence we have for the resurrection is the apostle Paul and... even people like Michael Martin and G.A. Wells concede that Paul was an eyewitness to what he believed was a resurrection appearance of Jesus... The same goes for James, the brother of Jesus. He was also an unbeliever during Jesus' life. That's conceded by virtually all scholars... we have Paul's testimony first-hand... It's rare to find any New Testament scholars who deny Pauline authorship for 1 Corinthians. Paul states a couple of times that he saw the resurrected Jesus... not only is Paul giving us his own experience, he's our best window on the other apostles and what they were preaching regarding Jesus' resurrection." (Pg. 34)
They have the following exchange: "AF: We have a whole lot of people who think they saw him... they were grief-related appearances... ostensible appearances. Yes, what seemed to them to be appearances... GH: Okay, so basically if you're going to say grief visions, you're saying hallucinations. AF: If you'd like, yes." (Pg. 39)
Later, we read: "GH: Is your present view unfalsifiable?... Your unbelief specifically in the resurrection... If we have our list of historical facts and every time you bring up a natural possibility, each one seems to be opposed by a number of rejoinders, at what point do you say that it begins to look like a real resurrection? Or conversely, at what point would you say that you view is not falsifiable? AF: I think the only honest answer is that I don't know. I am not sure...
"I think the unfalsifiability of UNBELIEF is somehow a different problem than the unfalsifiability of a BELIEF. GH: But if you can't falsify your own view, and if there is no probable rejoinder to the resurrection, and you're left with, 'Well, I don't want to believe it anyway,' of course that's your right." (Pg. 44-45)
Habermas discusses near-death experiences [which he dealt with at length in Immortality: The Other Side of Death]: "take a highly evidenced NDE where someone recalls data during an EEG that is flat for three hours, and they report things they saw during that time, although their brain apparently wasn't working... NDSs say, 'Wow, this world might be different from what we think it is.' " (Pg. 46)
Flew admits in response to a question, "you want me to respond to Pascal's wager. I'm afraid that at this time in the evening I don't feel fit to do so. I have recently written some second thoughts about this wager, but I don't recall them right now." (Pg. 61) When another questioner asks what happened to Jesus' body if he wasn't resurrected, he replied, "I don't know. I don't pretend to know. Because i don't think we can be in a position to know that the body was deposited in a tomb, though of course the opponents of Christianity wanted to find the body, didn't they? They wanted to find a body that hadn't risen." (Pg. 62)
In a later exchange, we read: "AF: as a schoolboy of fifteen years, it first appeared to me that the thesis that the universe was created and is sustained by a Being of infinite power and goodness is flatly incompatible with the occurrence of massive undeniable and undenied evils in that universe... GH: In your view, then, God hasn't done anything about evil. AF: No, not at all, other than producing a lot of it." (Pg. 77)
All of the dialogues between Flew and Habermas are fascinating reading, and will be of tremendous interest to students of apologetics, or of the philosophy of religion.
August 14, 2017
This book exceeded my expectations. The transcript of the debate only scratches the surface of the real value found within. The interview of Flew by Habermas, after Flew's conversion to deism, and Habermas's review of Flew's book about that conversion were also fantastic. But the real coup de gras is the final section, where Baggett purse the philosophical features of the issue involved.
April 27, 2019
I picked this up to follow along with the debate as I was watching it for an Apologetics class. The "debate" itself was astounding to me, with the wonderful tone and respect between the two men, and the way that Habermas graciously interacted with Flew. The subsequent material in the book detailing Flew's further response after this debate and analysis of the content of the debate is excellent.
August 10, 2020
Good content, but poorly adapted to print. Better to listen to the debate itself.
December 4, 2017
A very good presentation on the arguments of both sides. It seems to me to fall in the pro-Christian camp. A good introduction to philosophical debate. I gained great perspective from this.
Read
March 27, 2019A collection of dialogues between a theologian knowledgeable about the resurrection of Jesus and a philosopher who abandoned atheism for belief in God. Religious scholar Gary Habermas has a friendship with thinker Antony Flew. They have had a series of public debates not without tension and disagreements. Habermas defends the resurrection with reason and logic. Flew argues there is a God, but can't subscribe to the Judeo-Christian understanding of of a trinitarian God who creates, redeeems and sustains humanity. Conversation in all the detailed accounts of Jesus death and resurrection are discussed very much as if f their dialogues could be taken as a script for a TV show called CSI: Jerusalem.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews