OpenTheo

Bodily Resurrection vs Consensual Realities: A Licona Craffert Debate

Risen Jesus — Mike Licona
00:00
00:00

Bodily Resurrection vs Consensual Realities: A Licona Craffert Debate

June 25, 2025
Risen Jesus
Risen JesusMike Licona

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.

Share

Transcript

Hello and welcome to the risen Jesus podcast with Dr. Mike Licona. My name is Dr. Kurt Jares, your host. In today's episode, we have a 2010 debate between Dr. Michael Licona and Peter Craffert.
While Licona makes his case for the physical resurrection of Jesus,
Craffert contends that those who claimed to have observed the bodily resurrected Jesus experienced altered states of consciousness that they held to really be him. Join us to witness how Dr. Licona answers Craffert. Well, thank you, and it's good to be here.
I'm honored to be here at the University of Johannesburg this evening.
And I want to thank Professor Hansi Bulmarovs and the University of Johannesburg, as well as Johannesburg Ministries for inviting me to participate in tonight's dialogue. Now, we're in the 21st century.
And I think it's fair to say, is it reasonable for us, in the 21st century, to believe that a person was raised from the dead 2,000 years ago? I think that it is. And this evening, what I'm going to do is I'm going to present a positive historical case for Jesus' resurrection using two major building blocks, facts and method. Let's begin with the facts.
I'm not going to use the gospels this evening.
I believe personally that the gospels are historically reliable sources. Now, with Sandy, there's a lot of debate over how reliable the gospels are.
So, rather than getting to a lengthy debate on what are the gospels and how much of them are reliable, I'm going to be feeling exclusively in limiting focusing for the sake of gravity and simplicity on literature that was written prior to the gospels. That's the letters of Paul. Now, Paul was a Jewish leader who lived in the time of Jesus, did not like Jesus, did not like the Church, and he was persecuting the Church.
And then one day, Paul had an experience that he believed was of the risen Jesus who appeared to him.
And it radically transformed his life from a persecutor of the Church to one of its most able defenders. Now, just to give you a timeline on how these things unfold, most scholars believe that Jesus was crucified in the year 30.
Now, there's some dispute over it. For practical purposes tonight, it really doesn't matter within these few years. But just needed to be consistent with the timeline.
Let's say Jesus was crucified in the year 30.
Now, a lot of scholars believe that Paul had his conversion experience somewhere between one and three years after Jesus' crucifixion. Let's call it two years and say Paul had his experience in the year 32.
Then, in Paul's letter to the Galatian Church, a letter which is undisputedly written by the Apostle Paul, Paul in Galatians 118 says that three years after his conversion, or 35, he went up to Jerusalem and he visited with Peter, who was the leader of the Apostle, one of Jesus' closest associates, one of the closest disciples. And he also saw James the brother of Jesus. Now, it's interesting to note that the Greek term that Paul uses here for a visit is history-style, for which we get the English word, history.
So this suggests that Paul's reason for going up to Jerusalem is to get in history of the Latin teachings of Jesus. After all, he had not been one of Jesus' disciples, so he wanted the whole nine yards, all the information that those who had to do. Then in Galatians chapter 2, Paul says that 14 years later he went back up to Jerusalem.
And we don't know if that's 14 years after this first visit or after his conversion experience. So somewhere we have to say around 11 to 14 years later, or the years 46 to 49, Paul goes up to Jerusalem. And he says the objective of his visit this time was to meet with the pillars of the church, Peter, James, and John, the leaders of the Jerusalem church.
To run the gospel past them, the message that he had been preaching, to make sure that he hadn't been working in vain. In other words, he wanted to make sure that he was preaching the same thing that they were preaching. In other words, in Galatians 3, Paul says they had nothing to what he had to say.
They gave him the right hand of fellowship, meaning they were saying, you got it Paul, good job brother, keep up the good work. And we don't have to just take Paul's word on it. Polycarp and Clement of Rome were probably disciples of the apostles John and Peter respectively.
And so if Paul was preaching something different in his core teachings than Peter and John were, and they were two of the three pillars, when we would expect Clement and Polycarp to child Paul and correct him on it. After all, when they were writing Paul's debt, so they don't have to worry about him writing some sarcastic, nasty response. But when we go to Paul's letter, the letters of Polycarp and first Clement, we find Clement saying that Paul accurately can rely on the message of truth.
We find that he placed Paul on par with his mentor Peter. We find that Polycarp referred to the Blessed Paul and quoted from his writings and referred to them as part of the sacred scriptures. These are not the kinds of things that you say if the person is preaching something completely different than your mentor was.
But it is the kind of thing that you would say if they were preaching exactly the same sort of things that your mentors were. I can give more, but that should for Bradley's sake, that should serve to shell that Paul is preaching the essential fundamental foundational doctrines that the Jerusalem apostles were. So that when we come to reading Paul's letters, we are also hearing in terms of the core doctrines, the voice of the Jerusalem apostles.
Now a couple of years after this, in year around 51, Paul goes up to a Mediterranean city in Corinth and he starts a church there. And then a few years later, 53 to 55, he writes a letter to that church responding and answering a bunch of those questions, their questions, a letter we now call first creations. In chapter 15 of that letter, he's going to discuss a bunch of things about the resurrection, so we'll focus on that in a moment.
We're not quite sure exactly when they were written scholars differ, and very honestly, we can't have pinpoint precision on it. But just to give you an idea on the standard dating of the hospitals, most scholars believe that Mark was the first gospel written, and he writes 10 to 15 years later between 65 to 70 or 35 to 40 years after Jesus' crucifixion. That's pretty good by ancient standards to have a biography within 30 to 40 years of the original, of the person subject's life.
It's not like we don't have anything about Jesus in the meantime, anyway, we've got a lot in terms of what we can get from the apostle Paul, he gets on a few letters and things. Now, let's talk about first Corinthians chapter 15. Oh, by the way, a couple of facts here.
I told you we were going to present facts, and now there are five facts.
Fact number one is that Paul had an experience that he believed that he made him an eyewitness of the risen Jesus. Two, Paul knew Jesus' disciples.
Three, Paul taught what they taught.
All right, now let's look at what they were teaching. First Corinthians 15 is a chapter all about resurrection, and he writes this, I deliver to you at first what I also received.
Now, most scholars who write on the subject agree that Paul here is imparting to the church oral tradition that had been passed along to him. And one of the reasons for believing this, there are many, but one of the reasons are these two terms here that I have to italicize delivered and received. These were commonly used as technical terms for the party of oral tradition.
Now, what is it that is being passed along? He says that Christ died for us, and according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures. And that he appeared to Peter, then to the twelve, then he to more than five hundred, rather than one time, among whom most remain alive until now, but some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all of the apostles, last of all is to one in time to be born, he appeared also to me.
Now, what's interesting to know here is that there are six resurrection appearances. Three are to individuals and three to groups. The three individuals are Peter, James, and Paul.
Remember, Paul met with Peter, James, now, on two occasions.
So he's giving first-hand testimony, and then, of course, Paul knows himself. So we get some really good testimony first-hand from three people here.
The three room appearances to the twelve, more than five hundred, and to all the apostles are really good, because they suggest that these are not subjective group psychological natural experiences, because modern psychology seems to indicate that group, natural psychological phenomena within group experiences, like we're referring to if these appearances don't occur. Now, that brings us to our fourth fact, and that is, they talk that Jesus appeared to individuals and to groups, to friend and fellow like. Fact number five, they taught that Jesus was raised physically.
And this I suppose is probably going to be one of the main contentions between Professor Crawford and myself this evening. I'm continuing that they taught that Jesus was raised physically bodily from the dead, leaving behind in grave. Now, where do I get this? Especially if I'm not using the gospels.
Five times throughout Paul's letters, he says that the way that we Christians will be raised from the dead in the future is the way Jesus was raised. One such reference is 1st Corinthians 15, 20, when Paul says Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who sleep. The first fruits is an agricultural term referring to the first of the crops to be harvested.
You have a brew, a garden in your backyard, a tomato plant or something. Some tomatoes or those plants become ripe before the other, so they're the first fruits, the first to be picked. So Paul and the early Christians are saying that Jesus is the first fruits, the first to be raised from the dead with a resurrection type body.
Those who are asleep or referring to the dead. Well, then what's everybody else going to be raised from the dead? Three verses later, Paul answers this. He says, but each in his own order, Christ, the first fruits.
After that, those who are Christ's, add His coming. So according to the early Christians, Jesus was raised first in Paul's day and then everyone else will be raised from the dead at Jesus' second coming. So what happens in the meantime when a believer dies? Elsewhere in Paul's undisputed letters, 2 Corinthians 5, 8, Paul says to be absent from the bodies to be present looking forward.
In Philippians 1, 23 and 24, he gives the options, you can die and be with Christ or remain on in the body. So the picture we get from Paul is that when a Christian dies prior to the second coming of Christ, so let's say I'm flying back to a plan on Thursday and the plains ditches in the Atlantic Ocean, those things happen sometimes. Hopefully not on my trip.
By the way, it's not the drop out of the sky that kills you. It's the sudden stop. That's what I can do when you're in a plane crash.
If I were to die, let's say going back to Atlanta, according to Paul, what will happen is my spirit will leave the body. I become a disembodied spirit. I ascend to be with Christ in heaven.
And I remain there with him as a disembodied spirit until he returns. Then he brings back those with those who have died in Christ. And then we are reunited with our bodies, which are then resurrected and changed, transformed into a mortal glorious, powerful body that's animated by the Holy Spirit.
So it's a physical bodily resurrection we're talking about here. And if we're going to be raised as Jesus was raised, and if our bodies are going to be raised, then that means that they were teaching that Jesus is a physical corpse and be raised from the dead. And we're getting this in our earliest accounts.
So those are our five facts. That brings me now to my second nature building block, and that's method. Now, professional historians generally use a number of criteria.
I'm referring to historians outside of the community of biblical scholars who have spent a great deal of time studying the philosophy of history and historic and ethnic. And when I did my doctoral work at Tux, that's where I focused, the story of graphical considerations in the resurrection of Jesus. I wanted to know, with over 3,300 academic sources written on the resurrection since 1975, why there were so many differences in how many of the people writing had actually had training in the philosophy of history and historical method.
Most places who trained biblical scholars and philosophers go over that kind of training. So that's the kind of self that I engage in. I just consumed my reading was consumed with matters related to the philosophy of history and historical method.
And historians generally apply four criteria for the best explanation. And the best explanation is regarded as what probably occurred. The first is called explanatory scope.
The first thing a historian wants to do is to look at all of the data and they want to format policies that can account for all of the data. Think of putting together a jigsaw puzzle and all these different jigsaw puzzle pieces. Your solution wants to incorporate all the pieces of the puzzle and not leave so stranded.
If every piece of the puzzle represents a historical fact, you will include all of the facts, not just some of them. The hypothesis that can account for the greatest number of facts is to be preferred. Explanatory power is the ability of a hypothesis to account for the data without forcing them to fit or without excessive ambiguity.
So you can force it. You don't want to do that with some of the data to make it force your hypothesis. And you don't want to leave it so ambiguous as it really doesn't explain much, almost like it can't catch me.
Ad hoc is a Latin term that's referring to non-evidentist assumptions. So I don't want to have some presuppositions involved. I definitely wouldn't want to argue for the resurrection by saying, well, I'm presupposing that the Bible is inspired by God and without any error.
Therefore, the resurrection happened because the Bible teaches that way. Well, that would be a non-evidentist assumption. And the hypothesis that has the least number of non-evidentist assumptions is to be preferred.
Finally, is plausibility. You want something that is an agreement with other widely accepted facts. Now, let me go over the resurrection hypothesis with you very quickly and then I'm going to sit down.
The resurrection hypothesis that I'm using this evening is that Jesus rose physically, bodily from the dead. Now, let's look at this hypothesis based on the data we have, the five facts that I discussed. If Jesus rose from the dead, does that explain why a number of people had experiences that they perceive who are the risen Jesus who appear to them in individual and in group settings to friend and foe alike? And it led them to the belief that Jesus had been physically bodily raised from the dead.
Sure, does it do it without forcing the facts in the dead? Sure, does it do it without any ambiguity? Right, I'm saying right up front. I'm not leaving an ambiguous disabled name. I believe Jesus rose from the dead, but we don't know in what sense he was raised.
No, I'm saying they believed he was raised physically from the dead. So, it doesn't lack explaining to him. He passes these first two criteria very well.
Is it ad hoc? Are there any non-evidence assumptions? I don't think so. At most someone could say, well, Mike, you're assuming that God exists. Well, no, I'm not because I haven't argued that God raised Jesus from the dead.
That's a separate question. My question right now is, was Jesus raised? It's oftentimes we can, in practice of history, we can conclude a historical that occurred without arguing for the cause of it. We do this in science all the time.
We do it. Physicists do it. They posit theoretical entities like black holes, quarks, strings, and glumons.
These things have never been observed. Probably never will. But there are theoretical entities used to explain phenomena that we see.
In the same way, with the resurrection of Jesus, we can say, oh, he was raised from the dead. Now, that's kind of interesting. Now, did that occur? Then we could posit theoretical entity like God.
But whatever we do, what we say is God or some alien in a parallel universe is doing his PhD experiment to see if you could see human beings to conclude that Jesus is God. Or that he was God, and he was just a poser. Who knows? I'm not arguing one way or another tonight.
I think God, I mean, really, I think God is the best candidate that Jesus was raised. But I'm not arguing that. And even if I did argue for God's existence, it's far from being an activist assumption.
I think there's very good evidence for God's existence from philosophy and science. Like astrophysics, like the cosmological constants in the universe and the flatness, a factor that's a result of the big bang. Well, that's a different way that I could argue from astrophysics and molecular biology for an intelligent designer of the universe and life itself.
But so it's not non-evident assumption. There is evidence for God's existence. So I don't think that this is at high at all.
The plausibility, I do think, is a little challenging for me. The plausibility means, is it in agreement with other widely accepted facts? Now I'd be the first to admit, it's not widely accepted that people were raised from the dead. At least financial causes.
I think we all agree, whether we're a Christian or whatever we believe, that the dead are not raised by natural causes. But if Jesus was raised from the dead, let's face it. It probably was a unique event performed by a duty for a specific purpose.
And so we wouldn't expect these things to be happening all the time. And if God exists in one of to raise Jesus, well, I think we all agree that that's not at all implausible. It would be widely accepted that if God exists in one of to raise Jesus, then he would.
And could. But I don't want to make such assumptions like that. So to be honest with you, I haven't got my arms around that plausibility thing completely yet.
I don't think it's implausible, but I don't want to play around with it in trying to position how I explain it such a way as to cheat. So in favor of my hypothesis, so for plausibility, I'm just going to say it doesn't pass, but it doesn't fail either. So here's the bottom line, let me just summarize what I've said over the last 19 minutes.
I've presented a positive historical case for Jesus's physical, bodily resurrection from the dead using two major building blocks. Facts and method. I've presented those five facts.
And then I, for my method, I gave four general criteria for comparing hypotheses for the best explanation. And I show how the resurrection hypothesis fulfills three of the four with flying colors and does not fail four. So we have a pretty good hypothesis here.
And until, unless and until someone can come up with a hypothesis that fulfills those criteria at least as well, if not better, then we should conclude as students of history that the resurrection of Jesus was an event that occurred in history. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Jesus, nice to know that. You've heard my answer in the question was, Jesus specifically is erected with a clear piece.
Now, if you expect me to argue in our own narrow, then you're at the wrong place. Then you should probably leave. I have been hesitant to participate in this hearing.
And I'm still skeptical. But as you know, a skeptic is a person who gives an open mind. I hope I will be surprised.
But as it stands, academically, it's uncomfortable to answer this question, if not, in embarrassing. You participate in a discussion where the question was, Jesus physically resurrected. I say it is academically embarrassing because without realizing the question already contains an interpretation of the data.
Let me explain this with another example. In the early 1920s, Cecina Paine, a student in astrophysics at Harvard University, was forced to insert a very humiliating line in a published dissertation. Up to that point, scientists believe that the sun was 66% of 66% iron.
She looked at the spectroscopy data. She concluded that the sun probably consists of 90% hydrogen with a raise being here. So she had to insert the following inner thesis.
The enormous abundance of hydrogen is almost certainly not real. Today, there is not a single sun as iron feels if invisible, not even at Harvard. But imagine the embarrassment if someone is asked to answer the question.
But do you really think the sun consists of 66% iron? You see the question about the body of physical desolation. He's precisely like this question because he can be answered only by his or without. In other words, the question already presupposes a modern understanding of what needs to be determined.
The notion of a physical desolation is already an interpretation of the verbal text, which I want to suggest can be interpreted differently. What is the verbal text? Neither word about a physical desolation. In what follows, I will suggest a causal sensitive understanding of the verbal data that will show why the notion of a physical desolation in any one sense of the word is indeed like the sun as iron theory.
Indeed, not the best interpretation of the data. It would be suggested that the verbal text probably never were talking about a physical desolation in any one sense of the word. You should not miss the implicit point I'm making here.
If you do not, or even if you do not agree with my interpretation, what cannot be denied is that the same verbal text can be understood differently. Therefore, the question should at very least be, what is the best interpretation of the data? If not, is the notion of Jesus' physical desolation still defendable, and not, was Jesus physically infected? Almost everything I know about this discussion and this debate focuses on this question, and I'm suggesting that we should seriously look at the way we pose the question. In a sense, we see people up to all of the question that we already have predetermined.
Honestly, I have to say this, many more challenges at this university. I would like to have a computer that I can at least apply notes down to. Because I have to have a very specific point of focus.
As you said, it's you, Jeff. In my terms, I will show you what can be seen when looking at the data by means of cultural-sensitive lenses. You will be pointed out that the notion of a physical desolation is not one possible interpretation of the data.
However, I think it is probably like the Sun's iron theory, not the best interpretation of the data. In order to argue this point, they start with an illustrative story. In a study on alternative sites of consciousness showed AECs, the anthropologist Bruce Grendel tells us that on the mark of 23 October 1967, he witnessed the raising of the date during the Sissola funerary ceremony.
Grendel describes the experience during which he himself entered the consensual reality of the Sissola. That is a plan in Ghana. He describes this as a life-altering event that also changed his self-perception.
Upon inquiring, he discovered that many of the clan names experienced precisely the same thing, where the deceased drummer of the clan was raised up to play the drums on the roof of the hut. For the locals, it was an experience that merely confirmed beliefs and tradition, and therefore was very real and natural. Grendel, however, entered the consensual reality and experienced the raising of the date drummer through introduction to their cultural beliefs, while the circumstances of the few days of the funeral rituals repaid him for that experience.
As an anthropologist, he is fully aware that while real for the locals, and as a real as anything else in his own life, this was an experience of an altered state of consciousness. From what he's speaking, I take this as an example of an academically responsible and intellectually defensible as telegraphy. What Mike said about the historical made that I freely agree with him, the only point is he's just not complete, because he's telegraphy do not only work with that, and I will try to give you some indication of historical made that, because I'm saying that what Grendel did as his story yet is precisely what historians have to do, when they deal with data, the kind of data he had to deal with.
But what he's speaking, I take this as an example, so maybe give you just a clue of some of the elements that we have to take into account. Grendel knows perfectly well that 90% of the world's population today and even more informal times live in consensual realities, and that I see such as dreams and visions as normal, natural, and common ways of obtaining knowledge at the world. The team of anthropologists and neuroscientists, lots and lots in their commitment and refer to their work, many people, the majority of the planet, accept and experience what is called early phase consciousness, in which many states of consciousness, such as dreams and visions, are taken as real and often experienced.
Such cultures often provide religious and description for the how, when, and who are these experiences. Secondly, Grendel's interpretation contains an acknowledgement that the reality for all of us, me, you, the Sissawa, and Jesus's first followers, despite being presented as if objectively they, is consensual reality, that contains elements that are real, but do not necessarily exist. Adri, Grendel emphasizes that the reality of his experience could not have been recorded by some kind of recording device, because he knows that reality is relative to one's consciousness of it.
At the same time he acknowledges that precisely such collective, such collectively constructed consensus realities, or what all of us take to be real. Thirdly, the reverse side of this coin, none of us occupy or have access to reality, pure and simple, but we only have constructed maps consisting of the world of the neural processes in the brain and community approval. The neuroscientists and the United States are quite in extensive here.
To me, as neuroscientists, what is amazing about our perceptual processes is not how accurate it is, but how real it makes the world appear. Ultimately, it is one of the most functioned, useful human processes. That is why our original sense of reality is the primary belief from which all other beliefs emerge.
What the neuroscientific research has found is that your perceptions of reality and your beliefs are inextricably intertwined. Your sense of reality depends primarily on three criteria. The subject, the verdness of the experience, the continuity and the relation of experience in time and space, and the consensus of others on what is considered real.
Finally, come to realize that the world is populated by means of numerous conceptual realities. In fact, from the perspective of neuroscientists, you will learn that there are probably six billion consensus realities, while anthropologists tell us that many of these can be grouped together in patterns. One such pattern adopted by the majority of people on the planet is that they accept ACs, like these visions, revelations, and building blocks of reality and knowledge providing experiences.
What is however universal to one of these consensus realities is that each and every one of them appear to be real and object-like. Hopefully, this gives you a glimpse of the theoretical framework I am suggesting for understanding the data about Jesus' distinction. It is a framework that realizes people live in different cultural realities, and that what I report is not only a deal for him, but relative to that framework.
This revelation for this is all. He has the own aspect of this for you and me, and of the life experiences of deceased ancestors were, for first since it is alive. Now, I use this example of patriotism.
I don't know if you know what it is.
I don't know if you know this normally people make a lot of noise, and they take a cloth and they put it on the pole, and then adult beings will sadly and cry. With the World Cup coming up, you will probably see it.
We call it an anthem, and we call it a fad. As an expression of patriotism, I use this as an example to say reality is culturally constructed and culturally approved. This is just one example in our world, suggesting that patriotism, the information for this is all, and authorized experiences for many people are precisely the same kind of reality experiences.
Now, the contrast between this in terms of the framework, and what is going on in Jesus' research in general, and the relation by the particular, cannot be over-emphasizing. It is the difference between also, yes or no, to a presuppose understanding of the data versus what the data is about. What is taking for granted in responsible cross-cultural historiography, that is writing history, is virtually absent in Jesus' research.
And what is absent, and what is absent there, occupy a single position in Jesus' research. Let me tell you, and you must have noticed that. Thirdly, absent from the seesaw example are speculations about the kind of body of the trauma of occupied, with the visual experiences with merely hallucinations, or whether that event was merely real.
Now, I am not suggesting that the public contact might infect about ACEs. The radical and historiographical framework will be taken as point of departure. In fact, the biblical texts are read as if they are in the original readings, as if they are talking about events and phenomena in our world.
New Testament historiography consists of listings and counting. The actual references. Three independent texts say that Jesus was touched by his father's name, who was physical.
So many independent texts claim he was seen, the name of the body must have been physical or material. Jesus woke back and spoke, and the people must have occupied the physical body. Now, the sun is iron theory is possible, but is it likely? Now, let me just write this problem with one example.
The problem referring to the right New Testament scholars list and list what the texts are saying, and because it takes and so many myths and say this, it must have happened, or it must have been real. Let me illustrate this with one element that teaches in the Saudi Bible. Anyone familiar with the text or the divided by Jesus' resurrection will know that seeing is central to it.
It takes the repeat of his life that the disciples saw Jesus or they appeared to him. And in the divided there are basically two understandings. Either it was a little normal scene that is normally conservative apologetic scholars or these were hallucinations.
That's mostly the critical scholars.
Since everybody knows the difference between seeing and hallucination, for conservatives scholars the sightings were real scenes because nobody will make such claims based on hallucinations. And for critical scholars, hallucinations are illusions.
And since these were hallucinations, they cannot be used to claim a bodily or physically physical resurrection. The shape of the radical position is that seeing the first eye to objective visual perception or to have explanations also referred to as subject provisions. Compared to the Cesar example, both the sides seem ignorant about the body of anthropological research, showing that visionary experiences for many people on the planet are neither objective nor valid explanations.
But both sides also seem oblivious to the cognitive neuroscientific research that has overturned our common fallacy about visual perception. Humans do not merely see what is out there. But seeing is a neurological process where believing is as much as seeing, believing is seen as much as seeing is believing.
But the psychologist Susan Backmore and the neuroscientist Rameshandran points to the common fallacy about vision that thinks about seeing as a concept of images on the right to the right. It is rather the case, they say, that liquid chemical impulses are streaming into the right where there are processes in numerous places by means of complex processes into visual consciousness. With far-reaching implications for claims about external reality, any visual perception is as much dependent on what is out there as what happens in the right.
Prior knowledge and beliefs, emotional attachment, the ability of the brain to fall in the depths as well as peer-to-peer confirmation are all essential or play a role for the illegal chemical impulses to be turned into visual perception and consciousness. If anything, the neuroscientific research on visual perception does not at all support the outdated realism of objective seeing versus hallucinations mentioned above. Any tiny bit of this can be stated by means of research into so-called optical illusions.
I have a picture here, I will show you, and then we'll use that right squarely. Do you see a one? Yes, yes. Okay, you can see the one.
Now, this is just a very small example to illustrate something. A very tiny bit of this can be stated by optical illusions. Optical illusions, such as seeing curve lines where there are slight, seeing a bright square where there is none, show that our minds can construct reality which does not exist.
There is no bright square on that paper. Now, only for seeing circles on that paper, but your brain. So how on earth can you see about square the reaches of A? You see, it's a very simple and... It's a very small piece of the small piece of reality.
It's a small piece of reality. Now reality is all started. In this negative crisis between our brains, the world update, and the objective agreement of communities.
We all live in reality that seems perfectly objective to our best neurological processes, but I all remain in the guided constructs. Based on prior minds can help the world, emotions, and the neurological structures we will all live in. Now, with these theoretical tools in mind that what I've listed from the multiple cultural realities, political cultures, the way we see, et cetera, let us look at the medical evidence.
You should note that as with this example, responsible historiography is not a matter of counting independent witnesses. In other words, listing big changes was touched. The type of touching only eight and smoke and therefore, it is the case.
But first, asking what the data is evidence for? That is interpreting the data by means by taking the consensus reality seriously. The people who seek their soldiers attached to him and ate with him are people sharing a particular cultural consensus reality. So how do we know about that reality? I will only point to some elements.
We know from new statistics that visions and apocalyptic experiences were extremely common among Jewish people at the time. The leaders may be self-respect with such experiences. Luke contains that he's three or five people having deemed or visionary experiences while in the evaluation, John tells us that he's four times about these, even the revelation.
Paul's later content stories about even the journeys out of what experiences and visionary experiences while the gospels contain numerous references to such experiences, such as during Jesus' backism. We also know that the same people who tell the stories about his realization also tell stories about seeing and speaking to angels, demons, and evil spirits. We have come across a series that we speak about the physicality of the angels or the demons who could speak.
We know in order to speak, we need a physical body to force air across the vehicles as well as have learned a particular language. But in beings and visionally experiences, that's for the brain or as real as any event in themselves wise, angels, demons, animals, and even deceased ancestors. Who by the way, if you ever thought about it, could be identified in a world where there were no structures, or there were no ancestors.
All these industries could perform more human activities like speaking and eating. Furthermore, we know that biblical people tell stories about vision and experiences as if they happened in space time. Look again at all these new stories of angels disguised as hungry visitors.
Just like one example from the New Testament, the transpiration story. It is reported, like any event in space time where Jesus and three disciples went up and out there, two ancestors Moses and Elijah appeared, and the disciples wanted to hear their things and they heard voices speaking to him. It is reported like a normal event in space time, but when coming down the mountain, Matthew explicitly said, tell no one the reason.
You will hear a story about it, that it was a vision, because the story was told like any other event in the cosmos. By the way, if you want to interpret these text literally as if they were events in space time, you will have to say that Jesus was not the first, but probably the third, Jesus was the next person and Elijah to have been saved from the heat. We also know that for first centuries, people deceased ancestors were part of the everyday life.
We know that the two of numerous holy ancestors were venerated in Jesus' day. Just look at the casual way in which the gospel tells us about this belief. In the number of experts, Jesus and John the Baptist, are questioned the identity.
Who do the people say that I am? And in each instance, the answer suggests that they could be revived ancestors, Elijah, one of the prophets. It is even suggested that Jesus was John the Baptist divided. That this assumption of these accounts is that deceased ancestors could be around, or that the body of someone could be possessed or fought by an ancestor of spirit or soul.
And in that way, assume the body of that ancestor of spirit. Such was the intentionality. We know that in justifying the Corinthians, why they should believe in Jesus' relation, Paul exclusively calls on Jesus' appearances.
Now, his early report, I think Mike has referred to that, as well as the looking accounts of his own Damascus experience clearly described as a visionary or a liberated experience. Paul tells us that the disciples had visual experiences and the gospel accounts, just like the configuration story, we thought about such experiences as if events were based on. Matthew, Luke, and John contain the reports of the women who saw an angel, or angels, or mainly white clothes, as they do.
And they all report it as its normal scene. Besides, all the features of visual experiences, Luke explicitly says, and he writes in our stories, that the women reported to the disciples that they saw a vision of angels. See, if you read it again, it looks like more reports that are more amazing based on.
And he gave us a clue here. We know that, when speaking about the nature of his active bodies, Paul relies on a very particular thing in Jewish thought, one that I call the astronomical compass. At the time, there were many different views on the afterlife.
I mean, it was a huge time. The typical thing, the comic view, depended on an immortal soul. Inside the body, that was right with.
While many Jewish people did not even entertain the idea of the afterlife, for example, the senses, others explicitly believed in terms of instruction. But they all do not agree on precisely what they say they mean. They were Jewish people who thought that instruction would be a symbol of a body continuation of this body.
Paul, however, and I think, if you want to understand, one couldn't think 15, what is the question about this. I'm suggesting Paul, however, because of the mystical thought in Jewish tradition, which means the body of the wise with the stars or the angels. Not everybody, but the sages will continue by as thoughts.
We find this idea in Daniel 12, which is that sages will shine like the stars. This creation between the stars and the buildings is even older than Jewish thought. The reason that Paul is leading up to this is state of the atomic idea of an immortal soul.
Paul is leading up to the Jewish idea of the transformation of the sages into star, light, or angel-like, beings. According to the eight visits, everything consisted of, according to the eight visits, I mean, present in the first century world, roughly in that later in the world, everything consists of configurations of four elements, fire, earth, and water. According to this mystical Jewish tradition, these selected sages will occupy the same kind of bodies that make up the stars and angels.
In other words, bodies of a different composition, spiritual bodies in this view are still bodies, but unlike facial bodies of a different configuration of the basic elements of the physics. Even here, it can be detected from all above, and the specific evidence in the New Testament. This one suggests that the biggest interpretation of the biblical data is that after these days, Jesus follows that culturally-approved experiences, fully embedded in the circumstances reality, and based on that claim, that after these days we appear to be the first century culturally-approved physical body.
Then he used the term restriction, which at the time was well known to express one version of life, please. To name this reality, given the existential reality and the experiences, they were fully convinced just like this is all about the death divination of the runner, about Jesus' physical body restriction. The circle of Jesus' first followers, and at least Paul, did not need historical or scientific evidence that Jesus was literally body-restricted.
Because vision and experiences inform donations about the potentialities of the human body, together with existing and natural beliefs, were sufficient for them to make precisely that claim. For them, such experiences could very well have served as basis for a family leaf that Jesus was, and his body, in these scenes of the world, of the world from the day. It, from a cultural sense, is the point of view, a new appreciation for the beauty of the data can be developed.
Like Guru Nubu, as an anthropologist, had appreciation for the cultural view and consensus the reality of the Sissala people, the cultural reality of Jesus' realization can even today be lost. Like the divination among the Sissala, we can and should respect the cultural reality for what it was, but it is not necessary to elevate it to an objective within. In this scene, you can't receive this.
Jesus was reflected in the first sentiment of the human body.
In terms of events and processes, making sense to them, and fitting their cultural system, if you cannot imagine that to some people, that is created also by vision and experiences, you will probably not be able to understand most of these reports. We can continue for able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to take Sissala's body or facilitate it or not.
If we do not start asking whether that is what the texts are about, the discussion will endlessly continue along the same lines. If you think the issue is whether the texts indeed claim or say what they saw, what they saw or that they touched him, I think then the discovery of 100 new gospel supporting that will confirm a physical disdirection and finally refute those without it. The point I'm trying to make is if your only historical method is to look for more and more data saying the same thing, then more text, if more text were to be discovered, it will confirm that.
However, if you realize that the world is filled with numerous consensus realities and that the above-mentioned data referred to events within one such reality, then the discovery of even 100 new gospels will merely affirm the interpretive problem. What are these texts evidence for? In my view, the notion of a physical disdirection in our sense of the term is neither what the texts are about nor the best interpretation of the data. In conclusion, I want to return to the reason why I am embarrassed to participate in the question as formulated here.
It was when discussing the Cesar example that he was pointed out that the rule did not speculate about the kind of body that the drama occupied, but those kind of issues are central in traditional service. What is the difference and why is it the case? Now, I think the theoretical difference is that as 20 other colleges cannot do it as two things. He endorsed the consensus reality of the Cesar for what it is, and by all the responsible cross-cultural historiography, his theory of holography avoided innocent truth of it.
That is, he avoided the practice of judging others by our right and standards. Understanding why these features are lacking in judicial historiography could help us moving beyond it. I will start with two facts that will probably be that we will probably call it beyond.
The first is that for nearly 2,000 years, Christians had to believe that Jesus was literally physically bodily-selected from the day. The majority is not more Christian today. I think that through our history believe that not based on evidence or argument, or because it has been proven based on tradition, belief, and confession.
It was like this, even since the second generation of disciples when pulled his first letter to the Corinthians says, for either level to you as of first importance what I also received. And part of that is transmitted, and part of what is transmitted is that Jesus was raised from the day, all as he says in verse 11. So we proclaim and you believe.
Now this is not unlike the belief of the seesawah, the death of a nation that is confirmed by experience, while experience is state by belief. Therefore I think that Alison is correct when he observes. My reading is not so surprising that most will believe in Jesus' resurrection, however exactly they are understanding, have as little need for modern historical criticism as goods have for mythology.
Now Martin refers to such historical justifications of the Christian consensus reality as modernist imperialism that is theologically offensive to millions of Christians. Now my second point, the second fact is that, which we probably will also agree on, but prominent with my introduction. The second fact is that the century old Christian conviction of Jesus' body of religion in towards the latter part of the 18th century where the emergence of a scientific view of the world went, at least among the intellectually lead rationalism replaced Christianity as the central ideology of the Western world.
Practical New Testament studies started as an ethnocentric rejection of the two greatest miracles in the Christian provision. The rationalist ethnocentric attack on the consensus reality of Christianity meet with apologetic ethnocentric defense of the same magnitude. I quote, 19 years says inevitably, inevitably, apologists for Christianity felt obliged to meet such opponents on their own grounds.
I think the time has come to acknowledge that both the rational rejection and apologetic defense operating on exactly the same ethnocentric playing field. The point I'm making is that the apologetic defense of a physical resurrection started some 200 years ago and continued an ethnocentric theoretical path that could not acknowledge the consensus reality of Christians for what it was. Christian apologetics, like critical scholarship is today still defined by this original starting point.
As the Sissama study shows neither apologetics nor critical scholars. Thank you. I will be done.
As the Sissama study shows neither apologetics nor critical scholarship need to include an ethnocentric rejection or defense of any consensus reality. However, despite the fact that such realities are all presented as object-like and have the status of reality for insiders, none has universal validity. Besides endorsing them, critical scholarship can also apply analytical concepts, such as other types of consciousness, to any or all of such cultural concepts.
However, instead of being sidetracked onto the ethnocentric list or know of a physical resurrection, it seems to me that one of the real challenges Christian theology is facing is coming to terms with each consensus reality. And if you think that theology can only be true and meaningful if it is based on heart, material, physical events, I think you understand a bit little about human realities and for that matter about the way in which God was revealed for them in these cultural events. Thank you.
Thank you, Professor Crawford. I do want to say that I've studied the resurrection and the literature on it for some time now and I believe that Professor Crawford's proposal that he's given this evening is one of the most inundated and fresh approaches to the resurrection that we've seen in decades. So I want to compliment him on that.
But as Professor Crawford said in his opening speech, he said, some biblical texts can be understood differently. The question is, which is the best explanation? And that's why the criteria for the best explanation, the method that I discussed and that professional historians use is so important. So tonight, in this speech, what I'm going to do is I'm going to review my case for the resurrection of Jesus, based on Professor Crawford's comments.
Again, I've
built a positive historical case for Jesus' resurrection using two major building blocks, facts and method. So let's review these. First, the facts.
Here I presented five facts
related to Jesus' resurrection. The first had to do with Paul B and I witnessed the experience that he believed he was an eyewitness of the risen Jesus. Two, Paul knew Jesus' disciples.
Three, Paul taught what they taught.
Four, they taught the appearances to individuals in groups, to friends and fellow alike. And five, they taught that Jesus had been raised physically from the dead.
And as I
suspected, Professor Crawford didn't contend with the first four, but he did with the fifth. And he said he doesn't believe that they were saying that Jesus appeared physically in his corpse. Instead, they were describing experiences that had occurred in an altered state of consciousness.
Now, I wholeheartedly agree with Professor Crawford
that the early Christians had experiences throughout their lives, in which they did, in which they experienced what they believed was the divine, while in altered state of consciousness. For example, they experienced some in dreams, trans is in visions. Just to give you an idea, there's four dreams that are reported in the New Testament.
And Matthew, that
Joseph, Mary's husband, had about, okay, first of all, Joseph, you can go ahead and take Mary for your wife, because the child she has in her is of the Holy Spirit, or get out of Bethlehem, Herod seeking to kill you, or it's okay now to go back. Those kinds of things. It says that that occurred in dreams.
Trans is Acts chapter 10. It says Peter went up to the roof around midday, somewhere around that, and he fell into a trance, and then he had a vision of a sheep coming down from having things like that, visions. When Stephen was being stoned, he had a vision.
He saw something
that no one else saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. So, yes, I agree with him completely that just as today people have experiences with an altered state of consciousness, they had them in antiquity as well. The difference would be in that culture, as opposed to Western culture, they recognized, I agree with him here, they recognized that these were actual events.
They thought that these were communications of the divine to them, just as
something that occurred in an ordinary state of consciousness in OSC. So, I agree with that. What Professor Crawford didn't say is that they also had experiences of what they did in the divine or supernatural.
That occurred in space-time. They believed occurred in space-time
in the ordinary states of consciousness. For example, on Acts chapter 12, Peter's in prison, and an angel comes and releases him.
The chains drop off of him and says,
get up, let's go. And I'm getting out of here. And Peter goes ahead and gets up and he thinks he's having a dream.
This is occurring in a dream in an altered state of consciousness.
But he says as he's walking, he comes to realize that it's real. In fact, the Greek term, all he does is use their true.
It's a true event. In other words, he's out of jail,
so it's occurring in space-time. This wasn't in an altered state of consciousness.
I could give several other examples. Let me just give one more. What about the racing of Lazarus that's reported? Are we to say, to be culturally sensitive, that this occurred in an altered state of consciousness and A-S-C? As though, well, come on, let's get together.
I know you're reading over Lazarus, but let me lead you into a trance, and you
can say that, and you can talk to him. No, because Jesus called Lazarus out of two commanded the others to unwrap him, and then he remained with them for some time. Experiences in altered state of consciousness are very short, maybe 15 minutes, but they're very short.
They don't go on for days and weeks and months. Then the Jewish
leaders plan to kill Lazarus, who Jesus had raised from the dead. You don't do this to someone in an altered state of consciousness.
You don't kill someone in a dream.
If we want to be culturally sensitive, we've got to take the text from what they said and not try to sing them something that's not really there. I could give several more.
So the question is now, we know that New Testament Christians, early ones, believe that events could occur in an ordinary state of consciousness as well. But when we come to the resurrection appearances, how did they regard these? I want to argue that they believed and they wrote in the text that they occurred in an ordinary state of consciousness. When you look through the New Testament report, some of the examples I just showed, when they believe that they occurred in an altered state of consciousness, like dreams, visions, and chances, it always notes it.
It happened in a dream, or Peter fell into a trance and had a vision,
things like this. We don't find such language in the resurrection narratives. It's completely absent.
Second, the gospels are pretty clear. There's an empty tomb,
and the corpse is missing. This is completely unnecessary if they were reporting that these appearances occurred in an altered state of consciousness.
But it is very common, very at home, at the recording that happened in an ordinary state of consciousness. If that's not enough, how about Acts chapter 13? Paul couldn't be clearer here. He says that Jesus rose into the death and fulfillment of Psalm 16 verse 10, which says, you will not allow your holy one to decay.
He said David wrote this, but he couldn't have been referring to himself because David died, was buried, and his body decayed. Jesus, on the other hand, died, was buried. His body didn't decay.
Instead, God raised it up.
How could you be any more clear that you're claiming that this event of the resurrection occurred in space time? It was an important, the appearances occurred in an ordinary state of consciousness, not an altered state of consciousness. Fourth, I argue that Paul's view of resurrection was that it happened to the corpse.
It was physical. And here, remember, I compared it. I said that the way Jesus
was raised is the way we will be raised.
That's Paul's argument. And then he goes
on to talk about our resurrection. And it's going to happen when Jesus returns.
But when we die, we're immediately with Christ in heaven. So the resurrection can only be referring to the corpse. And thus, if we're going to be raised physically, Jesus was raised physically.
Professor Crawford never addressed this argument.
What he did say is that Paul talks about the resurrection and relates to the resurrection body being glorious, like the stars. I agree, just like Daniel 12.
But he neglected to mention that there's also Jewish literature like 2nd Baruch, chapter 49 through 51, that mentions the same thing and explains a little more in depth. Chapter 49, it says, how are the dead raised? Chapter 50. The earth will return them in the same form and receive them.
Chapter 51, once the
earth has returned them in the same form and received them, they will be changed to become glorious, like the angels, and equal to the glory of the stars. This is precisely what Paul says. Because in chapter 15 to 1 Corinthians, he talks about the resurrection, and then in verses 52 and 53 says, this perishable will put on or clothe itself, like putting a jacket on.
This perishable
will put on the imperishable. This mortal will put on immortality. And he talks about how the trumpet will blow, the dead in Christ will be raised, and we will be changed.
The same words used in 2nd Baruch. It's a change. It's a transformation
of the physical body, not the taking on of a completely new one, while the old one remains in the grave.
He mentioned about Grundell's article. I've read that article
in the Journal of Anthropological Research. It's interesting.
It's spooky.
And the anthropologist in there, anthropologist in there, he got spooked. I mean, he was so spooked by the scenario that the next day he felt like he was going to vomit throughout the entire day.
He was really shaken by this. It's
a real interesting article about this drummer in Kenya, a musical drummer. He dies in these, the group of dancers.
They come and they're dancing around this guy
and he says, then the unthinkable happens. Something horrific happened. All of a sudden the chorus jumped up and started spinning around and dancing.
And then they
went up to the rooftop and he started playing the drums. And he said, he said, like Professor Crawford said, that, yeah, this happened in an altered state of consciousness. But why? Because it couldn't have happened in space times since these things don't happen.
That's a worldview judgment. But when you have multiple
people seeing the same thing, I would say that's not an altered state of consciousness. And if it was, I don't think that this is something that's a hallucination.
It could be demonic. And in fact, in Haiti, it could be, I mean, I'm not
saying the guy didn't rise from the dead in a sense. In Haiti, that's what zombieism is all about.
They do these kinds of things and they claim that the
evil spirit that gets into the court is its own temporary. And just like in this case, after it's over, the body falls back down into the position it was in. That's not what we're talking about with Jesus' resurrection here, far from it.
So we can
see that by five facts still stand. What about method? Well, here, I list four criteria for the best explanation, explanatory scope. And I said, the resurrection hypothesis fulfills three of the four with flying colors and doesn't fail the four.
What about Professor Crawford's? It lacks its explanatory scope because it can't account for the appearance of Paul. He never tried to do that. It lacks explanatory power because, as I've shown, it goes against the plain sense of the text.
It
pushes it and forces it to fit. Third, it's ad hoc because it assumes, it assumes it presupposes that the early Christians were referring to cultural experiences within altered its state of consciousness. And I've shown that they had both of them and that these don't fit altered state of consciousness.
Plausibility, I think it
passes that because it is accepted that altered state of consciousness experiences exist. So whereas the resurrection hypothesis fulfills three of the four and doesn't fail the fourth, Professor Crawford's hypothesis fails three of the four and passes one. We can clearly see that the resurrection hypothesis is the superior historical explanation.
Now, let me just make a few final very
quick remarks. He said he's embarrassed to participate in the discussion. I'm not.
I think that this is a very important discussion
in a text world view. And if Jesus didn't arise, Christianity's false. I don't want to be a member of a false religion.
And I want to go ahead and I want to practice, if Christianity's true and Jesus rose from the dead, that gives us a lot to think about. And it tells us God loves us. He really loves us and cares for us.
He says
that most Christians believe on our tradition. Well, that's a genetic fallacy. It's saying why it's we're not discussing this evening how someone came to believe something.
I might have come to believe something for the wrong reasons. It doesn't matter. We're just talking about you did Jesus rise physically from the dead.
And if you believe that is a correct, is it a correct
belief? I think it is. Finally, he talks about the ethical objection and he says that, hey, this is unethical to claim that Christianity is true because then you're saying all other religions are false. Well, Christianity is true then all other religions are false.
And other people like that are not
I mean, okay. But you know my mom has cancer. And when she found out about stage 4 breast cancer that it spread to her lip notes and back, that was really bad news for her.
And the doctor said, I've got bad news and here's what you've got to do. It went through all this stuff and says it couldn't be the worst time in your life. But if you want any chance of surviving, you've got to do it.
That was tough. I think it would have been unethical, it would have been for that doctor to say, but here's what I recommend. But there are people who would say that may not help and just think positive, eat some more chicken soup and you'll be just this guy.
And who am I to say no? That's unethical. We're not talking about someone's life here. We're talking positively about the potentially permanent destiny of one's soul.
And so I don't think it's unethical if we're talking about
a question that talks about whether it's Christianity is true. The apostle Paul himself said, if Jesus Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless. So, like he says a few verses later, in that case let's go partying for tomorrow.
Thanks for joining us today. If you'd like to learn more about the work in the ministry of Dr. Michael Kona, visit RisenJesus.com, where you can find authentic answers to genuine questions about the reliability of the Gospels and the resurrection of Jesus. Be sure to subscribe to this podcast, visit Dr. Lacona's YouTube channel, or consider becoming a monthly supporter.
This has been the RisenJesus Podcast, a ministry of Dr. Mike Lacona.

More From Risen Jesus

The Resurrection: A Matter of History or Faith? Licona and Pagels on the Ron Isana Show
The Resurrection: A Matter of History or Faith? Licona and Pagels on the Ron Isana Show
Risen Jesus
July 2, 2025
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 Je
An Ex-Christian Disputes Jesus' Physical Resurrection: Licona vs. Barker - Part 1
An Ex-Christian Disputes Jesus' Physical Resurrection: Licona vs. Barker - Part 1
Risen Jesus
July 9, 2025
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 Ch
An Ex-Christian Disputes Jesus' Physical Resurrection: Licona vs. Barker - Part 2
An Ex-Christian Disputes Jesus' Physical Resurrection: Licona vs. Barker - Part 2
Risen Jesus
July 16, 2025
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 C
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Four: Licona Responds and Q&A
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Four: Licona Responds and Q&A
Risen Jesus
June 18, 2025
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 vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Three: The Meaning of Miracle Stories
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Three: The Meaning of Miracle Stories
Risen Jesus
June 11, 2025
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 writi
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Two: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
Licona vs. Fales: A Debate in 4 Parts – Part Two: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
Risen Jesus
June 4, 2025
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
More From "Risen Jesus"

More on OpenTheo

Is It Okay to Ask God for the Repentance of Someone Who Has Passed Away?
Is It Okay to Ask God for the Repentance of Someone Who Has Passed Away?
#STRask
April 24, 2025
Questions about asking God for the repentance of someone who has passed away, how to respond to a request to pray for a deceased person, reconciling H
Licona and Martin: A Dialogue on Jesus' Claim of Divinity
Licona and Martin: A Dialogue on Jesus' Claim of Divinity
Risen Jesus
May 14, 2025
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 proba
What Should I Teach My Students About Worldviews?
What Should I Teach My Students About Worldviews?
#STRask
June 2, 2025
Question about how to go about teaching students about worldviews, what a worldview is, how to identify one, how to show that the Christian worldview
Could Inherently Sinful Humans Have Accurately Recorded the Word of God?
Could Inherently Sinful Humans Have Accurately Recorded the Word of God?
#STRask
July 7, 2025
Questions about whether or not inherently sinful humans could have accurately recorded the Word of God, whether the words about Moses in Acts 7:22 and
The Plausibility of Jesus' Rising from the Dead Licona vs. Shapiro
The Plausibility of Jesus' Rising from the Dead Licona vs. Shapiro
Risen Jesus
April 23, 2025
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
What Are the Top Five Things to Consider Before Joining a Church?
What Are the Top Five Things to Consider Before Joining a Church?
#STRask
July 3, 2025
Questions about the top five things to consider before joining a church when coming out of the NAR movement, and thoughts regarding a church putting o
Why Do Some Churches Say You Need to Keep the Mosaic Law?
Why Do Some Churches Say You Need to Keep the Mosaic Law?
#STRask
May 5, 2025
Questions about why some churches say you need to keep the Mosaic Law and the gospel of Christ to be saved, and whether or not it’s inappropriate for
How Is Prophecy About the Messiah Recognized?
How Is Prophecy About the Messiah Recognized?
#STRask
May 19, 2025
Questions about how to recognize prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament and whether or not Paul is just making Scripture say what he wants
More on the Midwest and Midlife with Kevin, Collin, and Justin
More on the Midwest and Midlife with Kevin, Collin, and Justin
Life and Books and Everything
May 19, 2025
The triumvirate comes back together to wrap up another season of LBE. Along with the obligatory sports chatter, the three guys talk at length about th
What Do Statistical Mechanics Have to Say About Jesus' Bodily Resurrection? Licona vs. Cavin - Part 1
What Do Statistical Mechanics Have to Say About Jesus' Bodily Resurrection? Licona vs. Cavin - Part 1
Risen Jesus
July 23, 2025
The following episode is a debate from 2012 at Antioch Church in Temecula, California, between Dr. Licona and philosophy professor Dr. R. Greg Cavin o
Is Morality Determined by Society?
Is Morality Determined by Society?
#STRask
June 26, 2025
Questions about how to respond to someone who says morality is determined by society, whether our evolutionary biology causes us to think it’s objecti
What Questions Should I Ask Someone Who Believes in a Higher Power?
What Questions Should I Ask Someone Who Believes in a Higher Power?
#STRask
May 26, 2025
Questions about what to ask someone who believes merely in a “higher power,” how to make a case for the existence of the afterlife, and whether or not
Can a Deceased Person’s Soul Live On in the Recipient of His Heart?
Can a Deceased Person’s Soul Live On in the Recipient of His Heart?
#STRask
May 12, 2025
Questions about whether a deceased person’s soul can live on in the recipient of his heart, whether 1 Corinthians 15:44 confirms that babies in the wo
Do People with Dementia Have Free Will?
Do People with Dementia Have Free Will?
#STRask
June 16, 2025
Question about whether or not people with dementia have free will and are morally responsible for the sins they commit.   * Do people with dementia h
Michael Egnor and Denyse O'Leary: The Immortal Mind
Michael Egnor and Denyse O'Leary: The Immortal Mind
Knight & Rose Show
May 31, 2025
Wintery Knight and Desert Rose interview Dr. Michael Egnor and Denyse O'Leary about their new book "The Immortal Mind". They discuss how scientific ev