• Summary
• Full Review
• Our Rating of this book

Summary

Recommended

Publisher's Abstract: Not available.

In this creative volume, Mike Licona brings to the reader a futuristic mock-debate between the apostle Paul and Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, on the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. Well, not exactly Paul and Muhammad themselves, but rather computer-designed simulations of the two. I won't go into the details of the imaginative setting that Licona creates, but he's very successful in establishing the right kind of mood from the start in getting the reader interested in the debate that follows. In this way, the book reads like an intriguing novel as much as it is an informative book on Christian and Muslim arguments for and against the resurrection.

The book is set up essentially in debate format, with both "Paul" and "Muhammad" making their opening statements and arguments, followed by one round of rebuttals by each, and capped off by 7 discussion sessions. There is also some narration from other characters Licona has created in order to add to the dramatic ambiance.

Licona's book is written for a popular audience, and as such it obviously is not designed to delve into the arguments in a great amount of depth. So, the seasoned apologist will find little new in regards to the apologetic arguments in favor of the resurrection presented. On the other hand, this book remains helpful for those that haven't considered the approach of establishing the historicity of the resurrection when viewing it through the lens of Christian/Islamic dialogue. Many Muslim apologists deny the historicity of Jesus' crucifixion, and by necessary extension, the resurrection. Others endorse the Swoon Theory, arguing that Jesus was preserved alive by God while on the cross. If it is allowed that God could miraculously preserve Jesus while making those executing him think he was dead, then this would provide an enhanced form of the Swoon Theory, and in turn help to explain the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances without having to conclude that Jesus was resurrected. Licona's addressing of arguments like these that one would not encounter when dealing with secular skeptics serves to make this book valuable even to seasoned apologists that have not dealt too heavily with Muslim apologetics.

Obviously, the way the debate transpired is not what we'd expect if we could actually transport (or even simulate accurately) Paul and Muhammad from their respective time periods to the present and watch them debate each other. In this way the book looked more like a debate between Mike Licona and Shabir Ally than Paul and Muhammad. But, since Licona's intention was to present the reader with modern scholarship while adding a flare of drama, this was the expected outcome.

By the end of the book, the reader will not have gotten into the subject of the resurrection to the extent that he or she would after reading the magisterial works on the subject by scholars like William Lane Craig or N.T. Wright, or for that matter of the book Licona co-authored recently with Gary Habermas, as this current book was designed as more of an introduction rather than a scholarly treatise. Nevertheless, the information that IS presented is reflective of the most up-to-date scholarship, and in the end enough arguments are formulated that the case for the historicity of the resurrection is compelling. On the flipside, the contrary case presented by "Muhammad" was, as a whole, more compelling than any that I've seen from Muslim apologists on this particular issue. I think the main aspect that some might find objectionable was that "Paul", as a whole, seemed to get substantially more "speaking time" in the discussion sessions than did "Muhammad". But, Licona explains that this was the case since it was "Paul" that carried the burden of proof in the debate.

This book proves to be an informative and imaginative read, and so is recommended for anybody wanting to familiarize himself/herself with the relevant issues at debate regarding the resurrection of Jesus Christ within the confines of Christian/Muslim dialogue.