Risen Jesus

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.

Dr. Mike Licona and Dr. Willian Lane Craig contend that the texts about Jesus’ resurrection were written to teach a physical, historical resurrection because when understood in their first-century Jewish Palestinian context, there is no other way the writers would have conceived of them. Dr. Spangenberg and Dr. Wolmarans disagree, arguing that they are later developed stories and myths taken as fact. This episode of the Risen Jesus podcast features a 2010 debate between the four scholars on this important topic.

Muslim professor Dr. Ali Ataie, a scholar of biblical hermeneutics, asserts that before the formation of the biblical canon, Christians did not believe that Jesus was killed. He argues that this claim was not, as held by some, originally a Muslim idea found in the Quran. In this episode, he debates Dr. Michael Licona, who refutes Ataie’s claim while contending that four solid historical facts provide sufficient evidence for Jesus’ death by crucifixion and later resurrection.

Is it reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Dr. Michael Licona claims that if Jesus didn’t, he is a false prophet, and no rational person should follow him. In this episode, Licona argues a case for the resurrection using the historical method and based on five facts gleaned from Paul’s writings. Former Christian minister, now agnostic philosopher and writer Dr. Abel Pienaar disagrees, citing biblical discrepancies, a pre-scientific worldview, the lack of hard evidence, and parallel stories of ancient gods and heroes coming back to life, as indicating that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth. Listen to the two scholars debate this critical topic in this episode of the Risen Jesus Podcast.

In this episode, Dr. Licona provides a positive case for the resurrection of Jesus at the 2017 [UN]Apologetic Conference in Austin, Texas. He bases his argument on contentions that 1) empirical data strongly suggests that reality has a supernatural dimension and 2) that historical data strongly suggests that Jesus rose from the dead. Mr. Dillahunty, an atheist activist and former Christian, disagrees, positing that there is not sufficient evidence for this conclusion. Instead, those who believe in Jesus’ bodily resurrection are committing the fallacious argument from personal incredulity. This means they take on this belief because they can’t find a better explanation for the historical evidence. Licona responds that Dillahunty is steeped in methodological naturalism, and the debate continues.

In this episode, Dr. Licona provides a positive case for the resurrection of Jesus at the 2017 [UN]Apologetic Conference in Austin, Texas. He bases his argument on contentions that 1) empirical data strongly suggests that reality has a supernatural dimension and 2) that historical data strongly suggests that Jesus rose from the dead. Mr. Dillahunty, an atheist activist and former Christian, disagrees, positing that there is not sufficient evidence for this conclusion. Instead, those who believe in Jesus’ bodily resurrection are committing the fallacious argument from personal incredulity. This means they take on this belief because they can’t find a better explanation for the historical evidence. Licona responds that Dillahunty is steeped in methodological naturalism, and the debate continues.

In this episode, a 2004 debate between Mike Licona and Richard Carrier, Licona presents a case for the resurrection of Jesus based on three facts that are strongly evidenced and acknowledged by the majority of scholars: 1) Jesus’ death by crucifixion, 2) the empty tomb, and 3) the experiences of Jesus’ disciples and his enemy Saul that they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus. Carrier contends that the earliest Christians only held that Jesus’ soul was exalted and that the idea of a bodily resurrection, and the gospel testimony in favor of this, came later through Paul. Who makes the stronger case?

In this episode, a 2004 debate between Mike Licona and Richard Carrier, Licona presents a case for the resurrection of Jesus based on three facts that are strongly evidenced and acknowledged by the majority of scholars: 1) Jesus’ death by crucifixion, 2) the empty tomb, and 3) the experiences of Jesus’ disciples and his enemy Saul that they believed were appearances of the risen Jesus. Carrier contends that the earliest Christians only held that Jesus’ soul was exalted and that the idea of a bodily resurrection, and the gospel testimony in favor of this, came later through Paul. Who makes the stronger case?