Risen Jesus

In today’s episode, Dr. Mike Licona debates Dr. Pieter Craffert at the University of Johannesburg. While Dr. Licona provides a positive case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus based on facts and historical method, Dr. Craffert proposes that the reports of the risen Jesus recorded in the New Testament are best explained as experiences of altered states of consciousness by those who claimed to see, touch, speak, and eat with the Messiah. Craffert calls this a case of consensual reality, meaning that these experiences were “real” for those involved, but a physical Jesus did not exist in them. Instead, cultural acceptance of such visions and the previous knowledge, emotions, and beliefs about the resurrection of those reporting these experiences led to their conclusion that they were real. The episode wraps with Dr. Licona challenging Craffert’s theory.

Today is the final episode in our four-part series covering the 2014 debate between Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Evan Fales. In this hour-long episode, Licona spends 15 minutes responding to Fales's presentation from part three, addressing the claims that miracles are metaphysically impossible and arguing that Hume’s criteria for miracle testimony are too strict. Following this segment, the two professors spend 45 minutes answering audience questions.

In this episode, we hear from Dr. Evan Fales as he presents his case against the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection and responds to Dr. Licona’s writings. This is the third segment of the four-part debate between the two scholars at the  University of St. Thomas in 2014. Dr. Fales does not take the miracle stories of Jesus as historical events; instead, he contends they are figurative and can be understood using the anthropology of religion. Fales claims these stories were written to provide solutions to the existential crises confronting the world of the Roman Empire and gives examples through his interpretations of the stories of Barabbas’ release and Jesus' three days in the grave.

The following episode is part two of the debate between atheist philosopher Dr. Evan Fales and Dr. Mike Licona in 2014 at the University of St. Thoman in St. Paul, Minnesota. In the first 30 minutes, Dr. Licona provides his positive case for the resurrection and then evaluates it alongside Dr. Fales’ hypothesis that Jesus did not rise from the dead but instead, the stories of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus recorded in the gospels are myths designed by the authors to provide both the Romans and Jews with solutions to their political problems. He finishes the session with a 30-minute audience Q&A.

In this episode, we join a 2014 debate between Dr. Mike Licona and atheist philosopher Dr. Evan Fales on whether Jesus rose from the dead. In this first segment of the four-part debate, Dr. Licona answers the question, “Can historians investigate miracle claims?” He gives a resounding “yes” as he defines miracles, discusses how to identify them, provides examples, and addresses objections to miracles. After delivering an approximately 30-minute presentation, Dr. Licona finishes this session by taking audience questions.

In today’s episode, we have a Religion Soup dialogue from Acadia Divinity College between Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Dale Martin on whether Jesus physically rose from the dead. Dr. Licona presents a positive historical case for physical resurrection based on the following five historical facts:Paul was an eyewitness to the risen Jesus.Paul knew the apostles personally.Paul checked with Peter and other apostles to verify that he was preaching their gospel.Both individuals and groups reported experiences that they believed were encounters with the risen Jesus.These encounters were of a physical Jesus.Dr. Martin argues against this, asserting that the resurrection cannot be historically established. He cites the vast differences among the recorded appearance accounts and that the tomb of Jesus did not become a place of veneration for the early Christians. Martin contends the resurrection involved a “pneumatic” body and cites scripture frequently recounting people not recognizing Jesus when he appeared to them as support for this view.

In this episode, Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Dale Martin discuss their differing views of Jesus’ claim of divinity. Licona proposes that “it is more probable than not that Jesus claimed to be God in some sense.” He bases this on the fact that the earliest Christians, those most plausibly connected to the apostles, held this view and that the best explanation is that Jesus said so himself. Licona cites passages equating Jesus with God and Jesus using “Son of Man,  divine and co-equal with God, as his preferred way to refer to himself.  Dr. Martin concedes that Jesus may have claimed divinity in some sense but not as orthodox Christians conceive. Instead, references to him as the “Son of Man” are claims to messiahship in a human or angelic sense, subordinate to God the Father. Martin claims that the orthodox Christian belief in Jesus’ divinity arose after his death in the second and third centuries, for if this had been taught by Jesus directly, the New Testament would not contain such a messy assortment of ideas about if, in what sense, and when Jesus became divine.

In this episode, Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Bart Ehrman face off for the second time on whether historians can prove the resurrection. Dr. Ehrman says no. Given that 1.) historians work to establish what most probably happened in the past and that 2.) miracles are, by definition, the least probable occurrence of an event, historical proof is impossible since the least probable occurrence of an event cannot also be, at the same time, the most probable. Dr. Licona disagrees, answers Ehrman, and makes his case for the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.

In this episode, Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Lawrence Shapiro debate the justifiability of believing Jesus was raised from the dead. Dr. Shapiro appeals to Bayes' Theorem and the unverifiability of the alternative hypotheses for the post-death appearances to argue against justifiability. Dr. Licona retorts that Bayes’ Theorem, which states that the less likely something is to happen, the stronger the evidence for it must be to convince us of its truth, is primarily inapplicable in historical studies since it requires that the probabilities for an event’s prior occurrence to be known. He also disputes Shapiro’s claims that the alternative hypotheses are as adequate as the resurrection hypothesis.

In this episode of the Risen Jesus podcast, we join Dr. Licona at Ohio State University for his 2017 resurrection debate with philosopher Dr. Lawrence Shapiro. Dr. Licona argues that believing that Jesus rose from the dead is justifiable and that Dr. Shapiro’s arguments to the contrary fail as they present a flawed view of the gospels, do not consider evidence from New Testament scholarship, and neglect the most substantial proof available, Paul’s writings. Dr. Shapiro disagrees that the details of the New Testament are essential to this question, asserting that the postulation that Jesus came back to life is no better an explanation for the reports of his post-death appearances than any other hypothesis. Furthermore, he states that even if we grant these appearances occurred, the various theories are not independently verifiable, so we have no justification for believing one over the others.