Paul Meets Muhammad: A Christian-Muslim Debate on the Resurrection

This book is a very entertaining way to learn how credible the Christian faith is. The book is fascinating and once I really got into it, I couldn't really put it down. So maybe some could say that this isn't the way that Paul and Muhammad would have debated, but ultimately that really isn't the point. Licona uses Islam's best arguements against Jesus' resurrection and then shows how irrational they are, a predictable result as Muslim apologetics are infantile compared to what we have in Christianity, as our faith is historic and evidential, and our faith is in reason, not a blind faith. I am currently talking to a muslim gentleman at my work and he is very well read, so it prompted me to pick up a couple of books. This is nice. God bless Michael R Licona. peace

A great book defending the truth of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth written by one of the leading scholars writing on the subject today. This fictional debate was similar in content to an actual debate that took place in 2004 where Licona defeated Muslim apologist Shabir Ally.

There are many differences between Islam and Christianity. One of the major differences concerns what happened to Jesus at Calvary. Did Jesus die on the cross and rise again on the third day, or did he not? Christians of course believe that he did, while Muslims deny it. One way to compare these claims and counter-claims is to provide a close examination of both what the Bible and the Koran say about the issue. Another way would be to compare Christian scholarship with Muslim scholarship on the issue. Michael Licona combines both elements in a cleverly devised format. He puts these arguments and counter-argument in the form of a debate between the apostle Paul and Muhammad. Paul of course was one of the greatest apostles of Jesus, while Muhammad was the prophet of Allah. Licona asks the reader to imagine these two heavyweights locked in a major debate about the resurrection. Arguments are given, responses are made, and the debate goes back and forth. After a series of arguments and rebuttals, a number of issues are tackled in a discussion period, followed by closing statements of each debater. This in turn is followed by the moderator's closing summation. While the debate is of course fictitious, the issues involved are not. Indeed, they center on the very heart of the Christian gospel, and have to do with monumental truth claims. Thus the importance of the debate. If one side is speaking truth on this issue, then the other must not be. Both sides cannot simultaneously be speaking truth on this topic, for the one side negates the other. Either Jesus died on the cross and rose again or he did not. If Christianity is right on this point, then Islam is wrong. Licona shows, through his two main characters, that he is suitably qualified to host this debate. He is well versed, of course, with the claims of Christianity, but he also shows a deep understanding of the counter-claims of Islam. As such, he can clearly and logically lay out the various claims and counter-claims. As an example, according to the gospel accounts, Jesus predicted that he would meet a violent death. Muhammad (and Islam) regard Jesus as a great prophet. But if Jesus did not die a violent death, then he must have been a false prophet. If so, not only Christians, but Muslims as well, would find this most troubling. Both the Christian gospels and the Koran would be wrong concerning Jesus if in fact he turned out to be a false prophet. In this and many other discussions, Licona (through Paul) strongly makes the case for the actual death and resurrection of Jesus. The cumulative evidence is just too strong to be denied. Indeed, the Christian view of the resurrection of Jesus best explains all of the evidence available to us. And the counter theories of Muslims - that Jesus did not die but was either rescued or substituted - simply lack any evidence. It takes more faith to believe the Koranic version of events than it does to accept the biblical version. All the evidence point

In this book, the author frames a debate between the Apostle Paul and the Prophet Muhammad on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. To accomplish this, he chooses the fictional setting of a debate between two holograms, using arguments created using artificial intelligence drawn from an extensive database of the writings of the two participants. The idea is, with a complete set of their writings, their debate styles, theologies, and responses to questions can be analyzed and replicated using AI, with holograms delivering those arguments in a simulated debate. The fictional debate takes place as part of demonstration of new cutting edge technology developed by MIT. On one hand, I would much rather have seen the debate take place in a fictional meeting between the two men out in the desert or some other poetic location. On the other hand, this is a creative literary device that drives home the point that the arguments in the book are comprehensive, based on a full analysis of the writings of these men, so that debate is not biased or slanted toward one position or another. The evidence simply is what it is. Indeed, although the author is a Christian, he went out of his way to not only be fair to the arguments from Islam, but to solicit input from Muslim friends to help strengthen "Muhammad's" arguments. The result, I believe, is a fair, well-balanced debate between the two sides that will be refreshing and informative. It is interesting to note that most of the Muslim arguments are not unique to Islam. They are the same arguments used against Jesus' resurrection by skeptics at large, so the relevance of this debate extends far beyond Christians and Muslims to anyone of any faith (or no faith). Although the material will be freshest for readers who are not familiar with the evidence for the resurrection, for those who are Licona takes an unusual approach that presents much of this material in a fresh way. Typically, Muslims point to perceived flaws in the gospel accounts to bolster their case against the resurrection. In this debate, however, Licona chose to base the strength of the Christian argument on evidence outside the gospels. Rather than appearing to sidestep potential problem areas, "Paul" seeks to show that the Christian position is not dependent upon the gospel accounts and stands as firm without them. It is an interesting approach that changes the debate from many perspectives and is well worth reading. If I will be allowed a nit, it is that, by taking this approach, Licona narrows the focus of the evidence to such an extent that, in my mind, much of the equally powerful evidence for the resurrection is excluded. While attempting to keep the focus on empirical evidence accepted by most, if not all, biblical scholars (regardless of their position on this issue), in my mind, the author's choice makes the arguments between the two debaters appear more equal than they really are. Still, this is an excellent introduction to