Does the Resurrection Require More Certainty Before Belief is Justified? | Highlight

Even if Jesus's resurrection is probable, is that enough certainty for us to base our life on? Should we require more evidence given the large claim of the resurrection? Dr. Licona walks through his own thoughts and journey on the matter with Andy Bannister.

#risenjesus #andybannister

[jordandthornburg]

I agree with the point. I need more but God gives it to those who seek him. Most Christians have always put their faith in their personal relationship with God through his holy spirit not in the historical evidence for the resurrection.

[michaelburnette]

Thanks for your ministry Mike. You're a very clear minded thinker.

[beijingbro]

awesome post.. brutal honesty.. just awesome!

[kurtmark]

God bless you. Love and respect from Pakistan.

[ioannissartzetakis]

The reanimation of Jesus' corpse to put as emotionally detached as possible is the most important miracle of Jesus. As a Christian I will be honest with all of you. We cannot use historical proportions to deduce a conclusion that is theological. The reason for this is because historical scholarship is limited by what is known as methodological naturalism but theology is categorized as supernaturalism. Historical propositions can only lead to historical conclusions. Our arguments from prophecy are also weak because they all can be reduced to translation, exegesis and eisegesis. The best tool one has is prayer. That is it. Ask God for the truth.

[pamdelaney]

Without the resurrection, our faith is in vain. Apostle Paul makes a strong argument. Many people went to their death proclaiming a risen Christ. Voddie Baucham's recent sermon in Texas is excellent on the subject of our risen Christ.

[friendlybanjoatheist]

Ouch. This is the worst answer ever. But it’s an honest one. Mike admits that he struggles with resurrection belief and that he worries that God will punish him for getting his conclusion wrong. He hopes God will understand that he’s been sincere. Mike chooses Christian belief as an insurance policy to protect against loss of his eternity. He even admits that it is a “wager.“

But Mike begs the question about the truth of Christianity when he assumes that remaining agnostic about the resurrection will not “take us” anywhere.

Mike’s answer is a breath of fresh air that reveals how intellectually bankrupt many Christian Apologists are, and how fear of eternal consequences motivates which positions they choose to hold.

Frankly, I feel sorry for Mike, and for every person who worries about God punishing them for getting their beliefs wrong. Seems to me a God who does that sort of stuff is not worthy of worship. So relax.

[BigIdeaSeeker]

“Being wrong and it cost me eternity.” Imagine that. Imagine that in this view a human being can be completely sincere and earnest in seeking, but genuinely mistaken in his conclusion and for that eternal punishment (or torture, torment, annihilation, or whatever one concludes). The very idea that a god can be so unclear even in demonstrating his existence (and even in regards to eternal fate of nonbelievers, which is still vehemently argued over by believers throughout history and geography) is a clear failure.

[unclekerr]

The problem is that this man has assumed, like most people, that the ideas and teachings of Christ make your life worse not better. This is because so few Christians ever mature.

[JamesKimSynergize]

Historical evidence is very different from scientific proofs. There is never going to be anything as remotely close to scientific certainty for historical events, especially those in the remote past that did not have the ability to be 'recorded' as in the modern technological world. What we rely on for the most part is eyewitness accounts that have been written down. And there is sufficient attestation of that sort for us to have reasonable certainty.

[kurtgundy]

With all do respect to Mike L. It seems his doubts come more from emotion than facts. He has written a good book on the resurrection. He knows the facts. The fact dont change in a way that make us doubt. Any new facts, new research, only add to what's already known and therefore should bolster our faith. New archeological discoveries, newly discovered (older therefore closer to the original) biblical manuscripts, new scientific discoveries etc. All of it is helpful to Christian apologetics and should bolster our faith. Which is why I say, atheists searching for evidence for God are like fish swimming in the ocean and searching for water.

Also, atheists (and non-Christians in general) seem incapable of making any argument for atheism, or against theism/Christianity without committing common logical fallacies; begging the question, straw-men, moving the goalposts, equivocating on language, red hearings, etc. Given all that, why should I not be confident in my Christian beliefs?

[The-F.R.E.E.-J.]

That's a very good point, that we must make a decision one way or the other, but there's more to it. I realize this is just a clip, so maybe he addressed this in another part of the interview, but what about asking the Lord, HIMSELF, and getting your answer from HIM and Him alone? Is that even considered as a possibility? FWIW, we believe, that is, ultimately, the *only* option because others are akin to folks like Ben Stanhope, who relies on the Enuma Elish & other Pagan traditions of men to define scripture.

[JaySamurai]

My money is on the resurrection. I'm willing to bet my 🏠

[resurrectionnerd]

The truth of the Resurrection relies on whether or not these people actually saw Jesus alive after his death. As I will demonstrate when you look at the earliest and only firsthand evidence, there is no evidence that these people really saw a physically resurrected person in reality.

According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 5 pg. 330, ὤφθη is:

_“the characteristic term to denote the (non-visual) presence of the self-revealing God.”_

The word was used to signify being

_“in the presence of revelation as such, without reference to the nature of its perception, or to the presence of God who reveals Himself in His Word. It thus seems that when ὤφθη is used to denote the resurrection appearances there is no primary emphasis on seeing as sensual or mental perception. The dominant thought is that the appearances are revelations, encounters with the risen Lord who reveals Himself or is revealed, cf. Gal. __1:16__…..they experienced His presence."_ – Pg. 358

_“When Paul classifies the Damascus appearance with the others in 1 Cor 15:5 this is not merely because he regards it as equivalent….It is also because he regards this appearance similar in kind. In all the appearances the presence of the risen Lord is a presence in transfigured corporeality, 1 Cor 15:42. It is the presence of the exalted Lord from heaven."_ – pg. 359

_"The meaning of ophthe. Ophthe is the aorist passive form of the Greek verb horao (I see). The word is used nine times in the New Testament in relation to the raised Jesus (Luke 24: 34; Acts 9: 17; 13: 31; 26: 16a; 1 Cor. 15: 5–8 (four times); and 1 Tim. 3: 16). When used with the dative, it is usually translated ‘He appeared’, and as such emphasizes the revelatory initiative of the one who appears. The sense is almost, ‘He let himself be seen’ (as opposed to something like ‘he was seen’)."_ - Stephen T. Davis, Christian Philosophical Theology, pg. 136

This is made clear in a passage from Philo:

"For which reason it is said, not that the wise man saw (εἶδε) God but that God appeared (ὤφθη) to the wise man; for it was impossible for any one to comprehend by his own unassisted power the true living God, unless he himself displayed and revealed himself to him." - Philo, On Abraham 17.80 

_"Some scholars who favour objective visions rather than ordinary seeing argue that the New Testament’s use of ophthe entails this conclusion. Thus Badham says: ‘most New Testament scholars believe that the word ophthe. . .refers to spiritual vision rather than to ocular sighting.’ The argument is that the religious use of ophthe is technical, marks a clear difference from ordinary visual perception of physical objects, and entails some sort of spiritual appearance, vision-like experience, or apprehension of a divine revelation."_- ibid, pg. 136

_"The LXX uses ὤφθη thirty-sex times with all but six referring to theophanic events (or angelophanies). Likewise, of the eighteen occurrences of ὤφθη in the NT, all but one refer to supernatural appearances to people."_- Rob Fringer, Paul's Corporate Christophany, pg. 99. 

Note how horáō doesn't _necessarily_ mean "to see with the eyes."

ὁράω
1. to see with the eyes
2. **to see with the mind, to perceive, know**
3. to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience

"horáō – properly, see, **often with metaphorical meaning: "to see with the mind" (i.e. spiritually see), i.e. perceive (with inward spiritual perception)."**

Here is the only other place Paul describes his conversion experience.

Gal. 1:16 *"God revealed (ἀποκαλύψαι) His Son in/to me."*

The word for "revealed" ἀποκαλύπτω was used to refer to _"visionary disclosure of transcendent realities"_- Markus Bockmuehl,  Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity pp. 32-33, 101 in apocalyptic literature and apocalypticism is rife throughout Paul's letters. He believed Jesus would return within his lifetime and that the world would end soon.

"ἀποκαλύπτω - esp. of divine revelation of certain transcendent secrets (Ps 97:2; Da 2:19, 22 \[both Theod.\], 28; 1 Km 2:27; 3:21; Is 56:1)...of the interpr. of prophetic visions ἀ. τινί Hv 2, 2, 4; 2, 4, 1; 3, 3, 2ff; 3, 4, 3; 3, 8, 10; 3, 13, 4. ἀ. τινὶ ἀποκάλυψιν impart a revelation to someone 3, 12, 2. ἀ. τινὶ περί τινος give someone a revelation about someth. (TestReub 3:15) 3, 10, 2. ἀπεκαλύφθη μοι ἡ γνῶσις τῆς γραφῆς a knowledge of the scripture was disclosed to me 2, 2, 1....of the revelation of certain pers. and circumstances in the endtime (Da 10:1 Theod.)" - A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

Now, _without appealing to the gospels or Acts, _ and given the fact that the words ὤφθη and ἀποκαλύπτω didn't necessarily indicate physical appearances, how exactly are the descriptions Paul gives evidence that he really saw a bodily flesh and bone Jesus? Why would an unbiased reader read what Paul says and conclude this given the range of meaning these words can have?

The point of this question demonstrates that one must beg the question and assume the appearances were veridical when what Paul actually says, provides no evidence for this (due to the equal likelihood that these were imaginary/mistaken experiences that had nothing to do with reality). Paul uses the same verb ὤφθη for every "appearance" in the list and makes no distinction in regards to their nature. He does not indicate any of the appearances happened _before_ Jesus went to heaven either. In order to assume the appearances were veridical/physical then one must appeal to the later gospels and Acts but all those sources were not written by eyewitnesses and they grow in the telling so appealing to them runs the risk of reading later legendary embellishments into Paul's early testimony. Since the case for the Resurrection solely relies on if these people actually saw the Risen Jesus, but the evidence is, at best, inconclusive then the Resurrection argument fails to be persuasive to a neutral observer.

[kristoferkey]

It seems to me in all this that even if the resurrection happened it doesn't prove the theological claims attached to it; that it was done by Yahweh to show the truth of Jesus' claims. I certainly can think of other things that could have caused the resurrection.

1.) Satan did it to deceive people.
2.) Alien pranksters.
3.) Time travelers

I am sure others can think up other mechanisms that could have also done the resurrection. I am not saying that these things did happen mind you I am simply suggesting them to show that even the resurrection would not demonstrate the theological claims made of it.

How do we know there is an eternity so to speak? How do we know being wrong about the resurrection would cost us eternity? Strictly speaking though isn't Hell eternal? So we still have eternity, just not a nice one.

Truth be told I do not think anyone can answer these questions in any meaningful way so if you are going to believe just believe it, you will never prove it to the satisfaction of the doubting voice in the back of your head.

[offcenterconcepthaus]

The story "rings true" -- or not. More of a spiritual reckoning. It might be better to look at what Christianity has produced (its potency) across the centuries. (Tom Holland is keen with good illustrations, Harold Berman and Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy have both written "Law and Revolution" and "Out of Revolution - Autobiography of Western Man", respectively, that are phenomenal in drawing out these distinctions.

[kameelffarag]

The story of Christ and his life and death is a good story sufficient enough if the resurrection is true or probably true.
God cannot judge us for our inability to comprehend what cannot be fully comprehendible but judges our motives and seniority.
The work of Christ was mainly to fulfill the fathers plan of salvation, and God can save us in Bristol even if we did not understand the message of Christ, but lived righteous life to the best of our ability. Believing that God put eternity in our hearts. The fear of eternity should never be justified. There is only two ways either eternal life or eternal death. No Hell for human bodies or souls. Hell for eternal evil spirits. Period, other than that is ignorance. Thank you from a Christian who believes in Jesus Christ, and understands Jesus and Paul. Jesus never spoke about Hell, neither Paul. There is eternal life and eternal perishing.

[johnhumberstone]

I thought Pascal's Wager had pretty much been debunked these days.

[sphagbog]

It works both ways
Andy is basing his life on the probability Jesus did not resurrect and is not God. Why does he not want to be certain Jesus isn't God before he risks his life? Not logical