The Resurrection: A Matter of History or Faith? Licona and Pagels on the Ron Isana Show

00:00

The Resurrection: A Matter of History or Faith? Licona and Pagels on the Ron Isana Show

July 2, 2025

In this episode, we have a 2005 appearance of Dr. Mike Licona on the Ron Isana Show, where he defends the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus against Princeton professor Dr. Elaine Pagels' contention that not all early Christians believed Jesus was physically raised from the dead. Stating that spiritual experiences can be real, Pagels asserts that the gospels contain different versions of Jesus' appearances. It wasn't until the late 2nd century AD that the idea of a physical resurrection became the dominant understanding. A self-proclaimed Christian, Pagels agrees that all Christians believed that the resurrection was important, but they had different ideas about what was meant by resurrection. Along witht he dialogue between the two scholars, the show host and viewers weight in with their thoughts.

Transcript

Hello, and welcome to the Risen Jesus Podcast with Dr. Mike Licona. My name is Dr. Kurt Gerris, your host. For today's episode, we have a 2005 appearance by Dr. Licona on the Ron Isana Show, where he dialogues with Princeton professor Dr. Elaine Pagels on the historicity of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Dr. Pagels agrees that all early Christians believe that he is a Christian. Christians believed that the resurrection was important, but held different ideas about what was meant by resurrection, as evidenced by the various versions of Jesus' appearance in the Gospels. Join us as we hear Dr. Licona's response to this claim from Pagels, and audience comments about the shot of Turin, the Gnostic Gospels, and their place in this discussion.

You are listening to the Risen Jesus Podcast. Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Ron Isana Show.

On this holy Saturday, there is a deep sense of concern, not only for the life of Terry Shiva, whose tragic story has captured the hearts and minds of the nation, but also for Pope John Paul II, whose health is said to be failing, even as he struggles to celebrate the hope and promise of Easter. But as we think of the present day, the weekend also calls for our thoughts to drift back in time. Some 2,000 years ago, when Jesus Christ lived, taught, rebelled from Roman and Jewish authorities, was crucified, died, was buried, and if you are a Christian, believe he also rose the dead three days later to save mankind from its sins.

But the person of Jesus has been at the center of some intense scrutiny among historians and theologians alike for many years now. With some saying, they can prove that Christ not only lived and died, but was resurrected. While others say that while Christ's life and mission may have been a historic fact, the resurrection that is celebrated on Sunday is a matter of faith, not fact.

What do you believe that Jesus is the risen Messiah, a great philosopher, or a rebel with a cause executed by the Romans? The number to call is 1-866-8974 1-866-8974-766. Joining me on out to discuss who Jesus was historically and what his life meant are two scholars with opposing views of what we can prove compared to what we might believe. Mike Lacona is the co-author of the Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, a book that sets out to prove the resurrection as a historical fact, and also joining us as Professor Elaine Pagels of Princeton University, author of Beyond Belief and the Gnostic Gospels, who believes that history can tell us something about Jesus, but cannot tell us a thing about the reality of the resurrection.

I thank you both for joining us. And Mike, I'm going to start with you. You believe the resurrection to be a historical fact, and you can prove it, correct? That's correct.

Explain how. Well, first what we do as historians is we identify our sources that we have to work with, and most historians are going to say that the earliest writings we have about Jesus are those contained in the New Testament, and then we have a few others that we can look at that would be non-biblical sources. Josephus and the like.

Exactly. So just a few maybe two or three datum that we can get through those. Well, applying the principles of historiography and hermeneutics to these texts, historians come up with a number of data, probably 12 facts that are strongly supported historically, and are granted as facts by the large majority of today's scholars who study the subject, including skeptical ones.

From there, what we do is we put together and we try to find what is the best explanation for all these facts. All right, but just take if you would. I mean, I hate to, you know, force you to give me the reader's digest version of this, and we'll get to hermeneutics later because that may not be a word with which everybody is familiar, but some nail it for me.

How do you prove that Jesus actually rose from the dead? How about if I break it down to three facts? Okay. First, Jesus death by crucifixion. This is not disputed among scholars today.

Second is empty tomb. Approximately 75% of today's scholars acknowledge this. There's good evidence for it.

Third, the appearance, the appearance of that is that is a number of people, both friend and soul of Jesus, believe that he appeared to them, had resurrected and had appeared to them in a resurrected state. Now, when you look at those three facts and you say, what is the best explanation for those? Resurrection explains all three of those facts without any strain, and there are no plausible natural explanations that can do that. Now, Elaine, let me ask you about this because, you know, I've read a little bit about Jesus's life myself, and there are people who look at those same facts and say a lot of things could have happened.

I mean, Jesus was not the only person crucified by the Romans. I mean, 6,000 slaves were crucified by with Spartacus when he was put to death. With respect to the tomb, could his body have been stolen? Could he have never been entombed? Could he as others were at the time? And this has been a reference made by historians eaten by wild animals while on the cross.

First of all, fact is an interesting word that to choose for this, but let's say that he died by crucifixion, I think is a historical fact. Then from there, what we have in the earliest record about a witness of the resurrection is the letter of Paul, and Paul says, yes, Jesus was raised from the dead, but that doesn't mean that his body has a grave. Paul says that the body that dies is not the body that is raised, and Paul saw a vision of Christ alive.

He never suggests that he saw a resuscitated body. So I'd like to say from the very beginning, and also in the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Mark, you have different versions of what people actually say they saw. And yes, I'd say all Christians think resurrection is very important.

Where I differ somewhat from Professor Lincona is the question that they all thought that it meant the same thing, because some of them understood that you can see someone after the person dies and recognize that the person is alive, and that is quite different from the story about the empty tomb. Yeah, Mike, that's described as a spiritual experience some time, as a real one. So we're... Yeah, let me respond to that.

Please. We're she's referring to and Hylane. I like Elaine Pickles.

I would consider her friendly acquaintance. First Corinthians chapter 15, you go to verse 42, Paul is explaining what resurrection is. He's addressing the question that the Christians have asked about, what kind of body they'll have, and no one disputes that he's but Paul thinks that happens to Christians, happened to Jesus as well.

We could back it up with several verses. In verse 42, he says, so is the resurrection of the dead, or the dead one, since the Greek word is plural. It is so imperishable, it is raised imperishable.

Now, notice that he changes from talking about the plural dead ones to the singular is, which is the believer's body, and he says it's so imperishable, it's raised imperishable. In other words, what goes down in burial comes up in resurrection. There's a continuity.

Just a few verses later in verse 53, Paul says, he goes out of his way to say that this current body we have, that will be raised, because this perishable will put on the imperishable. This mortal will put on immortality. So again, there's confidence.

But Elaine, aside from the claim of having happened to Jesus, we have no other evidence that it has happened to a believer or any other individual. Well, let me say, can we go back to something you said before? You said that some people said it was a spiritual experience and not a I would say you can have a very real experience, which is a spiritual experience. It's not a question of, you know, I met a material one as opposed to spiritual.

I know, I know, but it can be there. I'm just saying, as early as the the gospels, we have different versions of what it meant to see Jesus and that that believers in Jesus believe that he is raised, I think is a fundamental fact for all Christians. But they were in gospel.

It's just a question of whether they take it as the body having come out of the grave. That is one version of the story and that's most often read at Easter, but it's by no means the only one. Well, you would agree that all four gospels very are very clear that it was a bodily resurrection.

Mark has a story of the empty tomb. They all have versions of stories that talk about that and they also have versions of stories that talk quite differently. And I think I read Paul quite differently.

He said he saw the resurrected Jesus. He never spoke about a physical body. So all I'm saying is that until the late second century, there wasn't a lot of agreement.

I mean, everyone thought it's important to believe about resurrection, but there was a great deal of latitude in the interpretation of that. Elaine, one of the points that you make in a lot of your writings is that the early church itself was divided over a number of different theological issues that weren't codified for a good 300 years. And even this question of Christ's, not just resurrection, but divinity wasn't decided upon by the early believers.

Well, indeed, I mean, I would just say with Michael and Kona that people would not have been Christians had they not believed that Jesus was raised from the dead. But the, you know, what precisely that meant when one sees a wide range in the gospel of Luke, the story of a man, the disciples never touched Jesus. They simply see him and he disappears.

He doesn't eat with them. And in the story directly afterwards, they touch him and he eats the proof that he's not a ghost. And most scholars think that these stories are put together because they're different accounts of what people say they saw.

Mike, what do you make it that they are conflated stories when it comes to questions of the risen Jesus and how he was experienced by people who saw him? Well, I would take issue with Elaine here. I think all four gospels are crystal clear that it was a bodily resurrection. The tomb was empty according to them.

And several of them talk about how there was meetings or appearances where he actually appeared to them. Some say he even touched them like Matthew and Luke and John. It was very physical.

Mark doesn't mention any appearances. However, in Mark 16, the angel says go ahead to Galilee because he told you he would meet you there. It seems to be a predicting what Jesus had already predicted back in 1428 that when I have risen, I'll go ahead into Galilee to meet you there.

So the gospels are crystal clear that it's a bodily resurrection. The tomb is empty. Paul is very clear on it as well.

And even a highly skeptical co-founder of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Cross, and it meant that Paul himself viewed the resurrect of Jesus as a bodily current. All right, let me just take a break on that note. When we come back, we will talk more about whether or not history can prove the resurrection of Christ as billions of Christians get ready to celebrate Easter on Sunday.

Our number is 1-866-8974 Ron, 1-866-8974-7766. We'll be back with Elaine Piggles and Mike Lacona right after this. The Ron and Sonna Show.

And we're back on the Ron and Sonna Show. We're talking about whether or not history can prove the resurrection of Jesus on this Easter weekend. Mike Lacona is the co-author of the case for the resurrection of Jesus, a book that sets out to prove the resurrection as historical fact.

And Princeton University Professor Elaine Piggles joins us as well, author of Beyond Belief and the Gnostic Gospels. We're taking your calls at 1-866-8974 Ron, 1-866-8974-7666, asking what you believe about all this. And we'll go straight to the phones right now.

We've got Ken listening and WTNT in Washington, DC. Ken, what do you think? Well, I'm a lifelong Christian, grew up sort of a fundamentalist, went to seminary, became a Presbyterian and ultimately converted Catholicism when I married in Italian Catholic. And I kind of believe that Jesus was an extraordinary man far beyond his time.

I mean, his treatment of women was unique in the ancient world. He was just extraordinary. But I think it was much like the Buddha and other extraordinary people who sort of got it and connected with God in a unique way.

And I say that because I'm doing a lot of reading lately, and I'm reading History of God by Karen. I'm strong to note, of course, at the Council of Nicaea that was at the Beethoven, whether it was the Vine or not. And one guest suggested that he quotes Paul.

And when I find troubling about that, I'm like somebody addressed, Paul had no experience of Jesus other than his vision. I mean, Paul's stuff is basically his opinion. It's always that probably that the church is so Paul lean.

Yeah, let me get to Mike and because Mike, you know, Paul, while he may have met and or we did meet both Peter and James, the leaders of the church in Jerusalem, he did never meet Jesus personally, correct? Well, we don't know that. But I would say an answer to that, that it is reported on a number of occasions that the leading apostles certified Paul's gospel to be in line with the one that they preached and they did know Jesus. Elaine, would you agree with that? Because the Paul lean tradition in some ways is a radical departure from what the Jerusalem church was discussing shortly after Jesus is at death.

No. Well, Mike is presenting the other side of that. I mean, there are different accounts of this in the New Testament.

The book of Acts says, as he pointed out, that they agreed. What I'd like to say for myself is that I don't, I think it's questionable we can prove historically that Jesus is resurrected because I think there's a limit to what historians can prove. I certainly don't think historians can prove that he wasn't.

I think what you can prove historically is that his disciples thought he was and that there was quite a difference of understanding of what that might mean and that it was more important to say that Jesus was resurrected as I think as a Christian myself, I would say that. Elaine, could you, I'd be curious to know why you don't think that it's within the realm of the historian to make a, a adjudicate on this matter? Because we don't have video cameras. What I'm saying is we didn't have a Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon, but we believe that.

Oh, we think that it's historically likely. We can't prove it. I mean, right, but proof we talk about, we talk about relative certainty.

If we have a high degree of distortion. Yeah, I would say it's relative, I would think it's quite certain that Jesus's disciples believe that. And I think resurrection is a possible explanation for this.

But to say it's historically proven is really to make quite an overstatement. All right, let me go to Ron in New Jersey listening on News Talk Radio 77W ABC. Hi Ron.

Hi, just a couple quick comments I wanted to make as a Jew who converted to Christianity. I was always taken by the fact that, you know, what could have caused Jews of the first century devout Jews to all of a sudden worship on Sunday. Remember the argument in the first hundred years of Christianity was whether or not to even let Gentiles in into Christianity.

So that was something that happened and you have to wonder what incredible event may have occurred to cause these Jews to worship on Sunday rather than his sacred Sabbath. Now, Elaine, let me let me ask you about that because, you know, Archbishop Shelby Spong, who formerly ran the Episcopal Diocese of Newark says that, you know, a lot of the Christian calendar was lined up to approximate the Jewish liturgical calendar so that those early Jews were more comfortable with Christian practice than they have otherwise been. Well, I mean, it's not simply Spong, but I mean, certainly it's well known that all of Christian tradition came out of Jewish tradition.

And the question that this gentleman is raising is why Christians, why Jews change their worship to Sunday? I think it is the conviction that that's the time in which people said they saw the risen Jesus. Yeah, Mike, would you agree with that? Yes, I would. Now, let me go to Rick on the line in Boston, Massachusetts listening on W.T.K.K. 96.9 FM talk.

Hi, Rick. How you doing? Good. Good.

Go ahead, please. Good. I have a question on what you guys hang up, but how do you guys feel about the stride of terrain and far historical proof? Michael, start with you.

Okay. Well, just recently, I mean, the main thing that has gone against this authenticity was the 1988 carbon-14 death testing on it. However, in recent years, that has been called into serious question, even the guy who invented carbon dating, the modern day version of it, the carbon-14, Harry Gough, who is an atheist physicist, said that the cleaning techniques necessary in order to get an accurate reading weren't done.

In fact, we don't even possess those cleaning techniques today because of the buildup of polymers on the shroud. And then a more recent, it was just shown in a scientific journal where the actual clipping that they took from the shroud, which is was on the far corner, was actually a weave that was put into it probably as a result of repairing from the buyer years ago. So, Elaine, what's your take on the authenticity of the shroud? Well, actually, I worked on much more ancient things, and I haven't looked at that data recently.

All right. Well, would you, I mean, if it were proven that it was from the time, would it prove Elaine the resurrection of Christ? As I say, I just haven't looked at that. I don't know.

Rhonda, I think that if the shroud of turn is authentic and there's good reason to believe that it is, then we have an actual photograph of the resurrection. That's empirical data if you want it. That's quite a claim.

It could be a photograph of anyone, couldn't it, Elaine? Well, I really, I don't want to make a comment. I try to stick to what I knew something about. So, and I don't know about that.

All right. I've got to take a break on that. Now, when we come back, we're going to continue this conversation about whether or not the resurrection of Jesus can be proved as billions of Christians prepare to celebrate Easter.

We're talking to Mike Lacona co-author of the case for the resurrection of Jesus and Professor Elaine Pagles of Princeton University, author of Beyond Belief and the Gnostic Gospels. We'll come back with more of your questions at 1-866-8974, Ron, 1-866-8974-7666. We're coming back with more of the program, our guests, and your calls, right after this.

And welcome back to the Ron and Sonah Show. We're talking about what history can prove about the resurrection of Jesus. Something celebrated this weekend by billions of Christians around the world.

Is it a matter of fact or a matter of faith? Mike Lacona, the co-author of the case for the resurrection of Jesus, has co-authored a book that sets out to prove the resurrection as a historical fact and also with me as Princeton University Professor Elaine Pagles, author of Beyond Belief and the Gnostic Gospels. We're taking your calls as well at 1-866-8974, Ron, 1-866-8974-7666. And Elaine, when we began the conversation, Mike started out by pointing to three items which he cited as fact that would prove the historicity, if you will, of the resurrection.

When you look about at the three points and what a lot of Christian historians say, the multiple attestations of what people said about it, prove that they had no motive to lie, that this is something that they experienced personally. As a historian, can you take those items pointed out by Mike as cold hard facts? Well, I thought you put it very well when you said it is a matter of history or faith. I'm just saying in the same chapter of Luke or the same chapter of John, there are different accounts.

One is about a vision of Jesus seen by his disciples. Never touched, you know, but a vision of Jesus and then right after is a story about them seeing an actual body that out of the grave. What I wanted to say is what I'm resisting is the suggestion that anyone who doesn't believe what he's calling fact, therefore rejects the resurrection and is a skeptic.

In fact, as a Christian, I feel that it's not historically provable. But you believe it yourself? But it is a matter of faith. I mean, you know, there's a saying in the New Testament that I'm sure is familiar to to Mike Lincona that faith is the substance of things hoped for and it's the evidence for things that aren't seen.

And I think this falls in that category, it's a matter of faith. Mike, can I ask you something? All right, you believe, you said a few moments ago, you believe that the disciples sincerely believe that Jesus had resurrected and it appeared to them. In addition to the disciples, I'm sure you would agree that Paul and James had the same thing.

So it's not only Jesus' friends, but some foes. So we have an enemy testimony. We have an empty tomb and we can see that resurrection explains all of these without strain.

Now, as historians, we look for the best explanation. So can you think of a better explanation for these facts than resurrection? I would say that not all of them said that they saw a body get out of the grave. They believe that Jesus was alive.

Yes. And then there are different stories about what they saw. In fact, Mike, some said they saw but did not recognize Jesus as Jesus.

Exactly. They're in the beginning of Luke 24 and also in the beginning of John 20 where Mary Magdalene, somebody appears that the people who know him very well don't recognize him. They don't touch him.

In fact, they're told not to touch him. He disappears. And then afterwards is a different kind of story.

So I'm just saying in the earliest traditions, which are put together in the gospel, there are deeply convinced believers who say they've seen some things that are somewhat different. And I think that is actually part of early Christian tradition for quite a while. I don't see why it can't be that way today.

All right. Let me go to the phones. I've got Richard in Montclair, New Jersey.

Hi, Richard. What do you think about all this? Yes, Ron. Thank you very much.

It's the first time I've had an opportunity to speak on your program. Well, we welcome you. I have spoken with some of your other ABC hosts.

Very interesting subject that you're addressing today. And I'd like to weigh in with some commentary. Please do.

There's several scriptures. I think they clearly support the Lord Jesus physical resurrection. I'll cite Romans, chapter eight, verse 11.

First Corinthians, chapter 15 and John, chapter 20, the account of Thomas, the doubting Thomas, Jesus said, if you reach and touch the nail prints in my hand, the hole in my side. But the best scripture that I can give is in Luke, chapter 24, where it gives you account of Jesus at the seaside. And he said, have you any meat? And they gave him a piece of broiled fish and a honeycomb.

And he took it and did eat it before them. Now, Mike, I guess that, you know, it again supports your contention. Yeah, I mean, Elaine, just appeal to Luke.

And it's Luke right here that present an empty tomb and Jesus eating. That's correct. And the story immediately before is the story about a mayis, which gives a very different impression.

Right. But it says that the story of a mayis is what, Elaine, if you would, the story of a man is the followers of Jesus. See a stranger on the road.

They don't recognize him. They walk with him all day. They invite him to dinner.

He goes into the inn with them and blesses the bread. And as he does so, they recognize finally that is Jesus and he vanishes. And then directly afterwards is the story that the gentleman mentioned.

So what I'm saying is most scholars think that your testament consists of these gospels of different accounts put together. The great scholar, C.H. Dodds, said there were vision accounts and there were empty cube accounts. And that means they're quite different.

All right. Let me go to Markup and Boston listening on W.T.K.K. 96.9 FM talk. Mark, what the aptly named Mark.

What do you think of all this? Hi, Ryan. I have several comments. First of all, my hobby happens to be church history.

And one of the things we need to be looking at is the Gospel of Peter, which is outside the canon. But it's interesting to note that Peter talks all about the so-called Holy Week, what happened at the tomb during this point in time from the day that the Jesus was put into the tomb to the time of the so-called resurrection. And the Gospel itself is relatively short.

But it talks all and gets into a whole theory about what happened, including a big flash of light. Now, if a previous scholar talked about the crowd of Turin that we know from modern-day photography, the only way that the shroud or an image can be engraved onto a piece of paper or onto a fabric with a flash light, what's interesting here is that the Gospel of Peter talks all about a big flash light that came from the tomb. By the same token.

And let me go to Mike for a second because, Mike, as you know, Elaine has written extensively about some of these gospels that are outside what we consider now the mainstream New Testament, the Gnostic Gospels, whether it's Peter, whether it is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene or the Gospel of Thomas. They all have very different accounts, not only of Jesus' resurrection, but actually what his mission on this planet might have been. Well, regarding that Gospel of Peter, agony and mechanic have done a painstaking analysis of phrases, of structure, Christian tendencies, and found the Gospel of Peter.

It certainly depended on Matthew and probably all four gospels. Most scholars dated as part of the late second century. And as John Meyer, a very prominent historical Jesus scholar, said, it's Gospel of Peter and many of these other Gnostic gospels read, this is the same kind of stuff from the last temptation of Christ.

Or you could say the Da Vinci Code, not the historical Jesus. Elaine, let me get you in on this because obviously this is the area of expertise. The Gospel of Peter, I think, is not one that I've worked on much.

Thomas certainly is probably a collection of early traditions that it speaks of Jesus as the living one, which I take to mean the resurrected one. It doesn't speak about the resurrection specifically. But I think most Christians take it for granted.

Well, what's the importance of the Gnostic gospels, though, in establishing the belief structure of the early church in your mind, Elaine, because I know this is a point of great contention among Christian historians and historians who are taking a slightly different and more detached view of the process. Well, what it suggests is that among the early Jesus movement, there was quite a wide range of of perspective and much wider even than we find in the gospels themselves, which is already very wide. And I think that's important to understand.

Some of these texts understand resurrection as fundamentally important. There's a writing on resurrection that was found with the Gospel of Thomas. And it interprets Paul's letter to First Corinthians about resurrection as being a transformation of things.

It certainly doesn't deny resurrection. It affirms it, but it's quite different from a literal view of that. All right, let me go to Tom in White Plains, New York.

Hi, Tom, what's on your mind? Hey, glad to hear you show. Listen regularly. The Gnostic gospels give the view of early Christianity without the editorializing or curtailing of information by the Roman Catholic Church.

Mike? Well, the Roman Catholic Church wasn't around when they were starting to be written. No, no, but kind of an acronym. In years to follow, they edited the message of the information.

Well, I think that's disputable. I mean, when it comes to which gospels were accepted, you have people like the apostolic fathers who wrote from probably the year 70 up to 150. And they quote, quote, or show familiar with familiarity with some number of the gospels and books in the New Testament.

Never are any of the Gnostic gospels reported or quoted or appealed to. There's no familiarity shown with them. By the time you get to Justin in the year 150, he talks about, he calls them the memoirs of the apostles.

And then he either quotes directly from them or mentioned stories that they're mentioned, but at not one time are any of the Gnostic gospels mentioned. All right, let me just get Elaine to offer us a final comment because I know she has some family obligations that she has to go take care of. And Elaine, we appreciated your time thus far.

Just some final thoughts before you depart. Mike's going to stay on with us through the rest of the hour. Your bottom line on all this.

Well, I just think it's useful to recognize that that when we talk about Christians and Christian faith, there can be among people of deep conviction and faith different ways of understanding these matters than than one simple one. And I'm not suggesting that Michael Koon is suggesting one simple one, but he's saying there's one thing on which we all have to agree if we follow the historical facts. And I think that I think there's a lot more than that that we can look at.

All right, Elaine, thanks very much. Have a happy Easter. We will hopefully talk to again soon.

Elaine Pagles is a professor at Princeton University, author of Beyond Belief in the Gnostic Gospels. Mike, for a moment, just to play, and I'll use this expression rather indelicately, devil's advocate here. There have been people who have suggested that Christ may have died on the cross, may have been executed by the Romans, but may have never been buried or, you know, entombed or never was resurrected because he died a Roman criminal's death, just like anybody else who was crucified by the Romans.

There are historians running around making those assertions, as you well know. Sure. John Dominic Crawford is the preeminent of them.

That is easily disproved. If you go to Josephus's work of Jewish wars, I think it's book four, section 317. First of all, Crossen is correct in that it was the tradition of the Romans to leave a person on the cross where they could be devoured by dogs, scavengers, birds, etc.

Or buried in a shallow grave. They've even found such graves in Rome, outside of Rome. However, in Jerusalem it was different because Josephus reports about the fall of Jerusalem just a couple of years before it.

So we're talking 67, 68 AD that some mercenaries hired by the Romans killed some Jewish leaders and the Jews were disgusted because they refused them burial. And then Josephus goes on to say that it was the custom of the Jews in Jerusalem to remove the condemned and the crucified prior to sunset and bury them. But he only makes a one-line reference to Jesus in all his work, correct? Twice.

Twice. Okay. Let me go back to the phones now.

Joe from Queens, New York. Hi, Joe. Hi, how are you? Good.

How are you? Good. Thank you. I was just thinking, listening to the discussion, that the resurrection itself is the linchpin under which the whole Christianity is based on.

Absolutely. So if you pull that, if you say that Christ did not rise from the dead, then the whole premise of him being the son of God and his whole message of dying on the cross for salvation is moot. And so therefore, I think one book that really affected me was a book called Evidence of the Man of Verde by Josh McDowell, where he uses the premises of, I think it's a court of law type principles in presenting evidence that, in a sense, proves that the resurrection that exists based on those principles.

And I think that if once you, once you start attacking the very resurrection and you attack, and don't misunderstand me, we're not attacking it here. We're having a conversation about it. I'm not saying that you are, but I'm saying that when you look at people that discuss the issues, you'll notice that the resurrection is always the focal point, because once you take the resurrection out of the people, and Jesus becomes a regular every other person.

Well, Mike, I mean, he may not be a regular other person, he could, you know, there are a lot of ways he could be described where the resurrection not to have occurred, but it is the linchpin of the entire religion. Sure, the religion. I have to call himself said in 1 Corinthians 15, 17.

If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless. Thanks for joining us today. If you'd like to learn more about the work and ministry of Dr. Mike Lacona, visit RisenJesus.com, where you can find authentic answers to genuine questions about the reliability of the gospels and the resurrection of Jesus.

Be sure to subscribe to this podcast, visit Dr. Lacona's YouTube channel, or consider becoming a monthly supporter. This has been the Risen Jesus podcast, a ministry of Dr. Mike Lacona.