Risen Jesus

In 2004, Islamic scholar Dr. Shabir Ally and Dr. Mike Licona met at Regent University to debate the physical resurrection of Jesus. Both cases, a lively Q&A between the scholars and an audience Q&A make up this week’s episode. Dr. Licona presents a positive case for Jesus’ resurrection based on three nearly universally agreed-upon facts about Jesus’ death and resurrection taken from the earliest historical sources. Dr. Ally presents the negative, citing Muslim beliefs about God’s forgiveness and the testimony of the Quran on Jesus’ crucifixion, as well as varying gospel testimony, which he believes changed over time to support the idea that Jesus died on the cross and was later bodily raised. Ally claims that, like Mel Gibson, the producer of the movie The Last Temptation of Christ, the gospel writers looked at what they thought the Old Testament writings said would happen to Jesus and then wrote what they thought should have occurred based upon this. Licona, conceding gospel difficulties for the sake of the discussion only, returns to his earlier evidence, which Ally fails to address. Dr. Licona remarks that they are fighting on two different hills and tensions rise over the presentation of source evidence.

This episode is a 2006 debate between Dr. Michael Licona and Steve Yothment, the president of the Atlanta Freethought Society, on whether man created God. Yothment takes the positive side. He proposes that ancient gods like Thor are myths and that every religion claims their gods to be the real ones and the others false. This then clearly means some of these gods, if not all, have been invented by humans. He also focuses on Christianity, disputing the Bible as the infallible word of God. Citing scientific evidence that appears to contradict Genesis' report of the age of man and the fact that humans suffer despite Scripture's numerous claims that God protects and provides for his people, Yothment concludes that the Bible is the word of man and that God it conveys is a creation of its writers. Dr. Licona argues the opposite based on the contention that there is good evidence for the existence of God, both scientific and historical and that his opponent's arguments are invalid and easily refuted.

The following episode is a debate from 2012 at Antioch Church in Temecula, California, between Dr. Licona and philosophy professor Dr. R. Greg Cavin on whether Jesus rose from the dead. Licona presents a historical case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus based on a set of almost universally agreed-upon facts and the methodology by which historians determine which explanation for an event is the most likely. Dr. Cavin finds Licona's arguments weak and contends that the Resurrection hypothesis fails to provide the explanatory scope, explanatory power, avoidance of ad hoc, and plausibility necessary to be the best hypothesis for the events reported to have occurred surrounding Jesus' death. Dr. Licona's response is to refute all these points directly. The back and forth continues as Cavin calls Dr. Licona's hypothesis "indefinite" and states that it fails to explain what the risen Jesus is, atoms or something else, and how he could be seen, touched, and heard as the gospels report. He later invokes statistical mechanics and the Postulate of Equal A Priori Probabilities to further his argument.

The following episode is a debate from 2012 at Antioch Church in Temecula, California, between Dr. Licona and philosophy professor Dr. R. Greg Cavin on whether Jesus rose from the dead. Licona presents a historical case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus based on a set of almost universally agreed-upon facts and the methodology by which historians determine which explanation for an event is the most likely. Dr. Cavin finds Licona's arguments weak and contends that the Resurrection hypothesis fails to provide the explanatory scope, explanatory power, avoidance of ad hoc, and plausibility necessary to be the best hypothesis for the events reported to have occurred surrounding Jesus' death. Dr. Licona's response is to refute all these points directly. The back and forth continues as Cavin calls Dr. Licona's hypothesis "indefinite" and states that it fails to explain what the risen Jesus is, atoms or something else, and how he could be seen, touched, and heard as the gospels report. He later invokes statistical mechanics and the Postulate of Equal A Priori Probabilities to further his argument.

In this episode , we have Dr. Mike Licona's first-ever debate. In 2003, Licona sparred with Dan Barker at the University of Wisonsin-Madison. Once a Christian evangelist and missionary, Barker declares that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and then asserts that there is not even ordinary evidence for the bodily resurrection. The former believer claims there was no eyewitness testimony to the resurrection or any 1st-century corroboration. Furthermore, Peter's testimony can't be trusted because he was a liar, and the gospels were written anonymously and, therefore, cannot be verified. Instead, Barker states that the disciples believed the resurrection was spiritual, and the belief that it was physical resulted from a pattern of legendary growth in the New Testament writings. Licona refutes these claims and provides his positive case for the historicity of the bodily resurrection based on a minimal facts argument drawn from the work of resurrection expert Dr. Gary Habermas.

In this episode, we have Dr. Mike Licona's first-ever debate. In 2003, Licona sparred with Dan Barker at the University of Wisonsin-Madison. Once a Christian evangelist and missionary, Barker declares that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and then asserts that there is not even ordinary evidence for the bodily resurrection. The former believer claims there was no eyewitness testimony to the resurrection or any 1st-century corroboration. Furthermore, Peter's testimony can't be trusted because he was a liar, and the gospels were written anonymously and, therefore, cannot be verified. Instead, Barker states that the disciples believed the resurrection was spiritual, and the belief that it was physical resulted from a pattern of legendary growth in the New Testament writings. Licona refutes these claims and provides his positive case for the historicity of the bodily resurrection based on a minimal facts argument drawn from the work of resurrection expert Dr. Gary Habermas.

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.

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.