After watching the debate between Licona and Ismail, I cannot help but be persuaded and believe that Jesus died by crucifixion based off of multiple points made by Licona. Throughout the debate, both speakers had generally persuasive key points to their arguments based on whether or not Jesus died by crucifixion. Unfortunately for Ismail, more than a couple of his concepts were less persuading due to the lack of evidence and supporting material.
On several accounts in rebuttals to Ismail's arguments, Licona mentions that Ismail lacks supporting material and/or that his sources of evidence are not credible. When Ismail was talking he referred to The Da Vince Code which is a movie that concerns some of Da Vince's paintings that lead to a religious mystery that could shake the foundations of Christianity. Now, this is no form of reliable evidence. Of course movies are going to include valid information, we would hope so anyway, but does that mean it is still a credible source? Let's say the information was true, The Da Vince Code does not site the source the writers and editors got the information now do they? In every aspect that Licona points out he is able to support it by acknowledging the sources that he got the information from. This is exactly what Ismail should have done. Since he did not, I'm confused as to how he would have been able to persuade others to believe in his arguments. .
There was also another time where Ismail was speaking and cited his source as a non-credible one that anyone could access on the internet and publish. Once again, Licona points out the distrust in his ability to cite proper sources. In the words of Licona, "For anyone to publish anything of the Internet the only requirement you must have is to breathe." Anyone is able to publish on the Internet. You do not have to be a scholar or writer. To be arguing about such a topic, in my opinion, one needs to find sources, like the bible, to refer.
