Religion Soup: "Did Jesus Believe He Was Divine?" Michael Licona and Dale Martin

Dr. Michael Licona and Dr. Dale Martin discuss the question "Did Jesus Believe He Was Divine?" The second evening of the 2012 Religion Soup discussion took place Oct 19, 2012 at Acadia University.
www.religionsoup.ca
- Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Historiographical approach. goo.gl/JcqCp
- Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus goo.gl/e67QI
Martin
- Martin, New Testament History and Literature goo.gl/wf31O
- Martin, Pedagogy of the Bible goo.gl/kppyA
- Martin, The Corinthian Body goo.gl/XXjLg

[@aaronmonroe7932]

This was a great discussion. I learned something. Thanks guys. I can't believe we are getting this content on KZbin. What a time to be alive.

[@andrewschwarz5982]

Such an interesting discussion with 2 incredibly articulate scholars.

[@jacobwood6709]

While I philosophically agree with Dr. Lincona's conclusion, I think he equivocated a bit in describing whether Jesus thought he was divine. He would say that Jesus believed he was YHWH, but then he would say that "probably" believed he was divine "of some sort." He never made it clear which standard he was holding his argument to. Because clearly those are two different bars. For Jesus to claim divinity "of some sort" leaves a wide open range from an angelic being to Adonai himself, but to claim to be the same one as God himself is a much higher standard. Remember, divine in 1st century Mediterranean did not necessarily mean that one was the same as YHWH.

[@McHipster]

in fact, martin's argument about "going against your story" has been used in american and british courts of law for centuries with admissible hearsay testimony. the policy is widely accepted because such a scenario is incredibly indicative of truthfulness.

[@mmiller4600]

Dale Martin says his understanding does not affect his beliefs because he believes in the Church being guided by the Spirit but then he questions authorship of letters who the Spirit inspired Church attributed to Paul. That sounds like a mighty big contradiction. Am I wrong in this? Did the Church not say Paul wrote these letters to the ancient Churches?

[@Wong-Jack-Man]

First the and foremost we are all walking contradictions. We can rationalize anything makes our individual world view make sense to us. Then when you bring in matters of faith makes it even more so. The crux of the issue is Jesus was portrayed with divinity and man some more so in some writings then others and that’s why there was debate then and debate now and debate into the far future. It will never get settled because history is lost.

[@dftknight]

He's a postmodernist. He doesn't care about contradictions and believes truth is relative.

[@fisterklister]

yes you are wrong

[@SOAS007]

"Otherwise, salvation is impossible." I never understand this. If there was a god, surely she can do anything, and make the rules, so sincere disbelieves would be 'saved' . I think this saved business is a bit like the mafia operation, do as we say or will punish you, and that will be your fault so you can thank the godfather for not punishing you.

[@markbernard8312]

No you misunderstand, you are already going to be punished, and Christ came to save you from that punishment.

[@bcfu8146]

@@markbernard8312 The conclusion is: 'you are already going to be punished'... and that's exactly how mafia operates.

[@SOAS007]

" If one does not love God " is it really possible to LOVE something that you cannot conceive, have never met ,and has never been shown there is any good reason to believe that ANY god exists? The belittles the meaning of love. Love cannot be demanded or forced.

[@sasquatch2999]

Mike Licona's opening argument was strong and precise. Paul uses language from Isaiah that applies to Yahweh and assigns it to Jesus. It's crystal clear who Paul considered Jesus to be.

[@maxvandyke2293]

sasquatch2999 yea but that just means Paul believed Jesus to be divine. the topic of debate is did Jesus claim to be divine. So in a way, what Paul thought is sort of irrelevant since it's about what Jesus himself thought.

[@sasquatch2999]

Yes, and Paul meets with the apostles on at least 2 occasions and declares that they are all in agreement concerning the nature of the gospel (1 Cor.15). So now we have Paul, Peter, James, and John in agreement concerning the preaching of the Gospel. Something has to account for this early belief which betrays an ultra monotheistic religion such as Judaism. If Jesus never claimed explicitly or implicitly to be divine then it becomes unintelligible how they arrived at this conclusion. Resurrection- while significant- would not be cause for this belief. Enoch and Elijah were translated into heaven and nobody claimed divine status for them. The most plausible explanation is that the resurrection vindicated Jesus' claims to be divine. The very claims which resulted in him being executed for blasphemy.

[@fisterklister]

licona is a nut, and his supporter most likelly is too

[@scottharrison812]

I don’t understand Dale’s assertion that he believes Jesus IS Divine and yet historically not so. Was he or wasn’t he, is he or isn’t he? Is this postmodern obfuscation?

[@seancronin4010]

Dale is so smart, so knowledgeable. Michael... seems like a nice guy.

[@jarrettpierce5626]

Lmao yes very true

[@jarrettpierce5626]

Loved the joseph smith example by dale

[@RudolphBoshoff]

Both the Debaters was pleasant to listen to. Dr Licona was simply just a notch above...

[@gmn545]

*サトルイアン* Yes I did watch the debate, and my comment argued *against* Licona's position. I'm not so concerned with the issue of biblical inerrancy (being fully aware of the textual variants, discrepancies, interpolations, etc.). I'm saying, even if one presupposes that what the text says is true, it does *not* intend to convey Licona's view; neither Jesus nor his early followers regarded him as the God of Israel.

[@JoshuaMSOG7]

Mybad because you haven’t read the Bible and wouldn’t understand it because one does not only look at it from the New Testament but the Old one also

[@gmn545]

@@JoshuaMSOG7 Thanks for replying to my 7 year old comment lol. I’ve studied both NT and OT, and both solidify my stance.

[@JoshuaMSOG7]

@@gmn545 I did notice it was 7 years ago and I’m pretty sure your no New Testament or Old Testament scholar and my comment still stands. Assuming if you “ did “ study and still come to the conclusion that Jesus nor his apostles regarded him as God of Israel is beyond preposterous. Matthew begins his account by focusing on Jesus as the son of David and the son of Abraham. By tracing Jesus’ lineage back to Abraham, Matthew explains to the covenant people that Jesus is the long-awaited and ultimate son of Abraham. Abraham is, of course, the father of the Jews-whom God called, in the days of the exodus-“my son” (Ex. 4:23). To understand Israel you have to understand Abraham & His covenant promises with Abraham (Gal. 3:16 ) which Christ is the seed. I don’t even know where to start. I want to actually believe if I’m wrong, show me.

[@gmn545]

@@JoshuaMSOG7 It's not preposterous, it's evident from the text itself. Trinitarians don't like to make distinctions re: ranks of authority, but they're quite clear. Plenty of examples exist to show the distinctions. Who was a son of David (2 Chron. 1:1), the son of God (1 Chron. 28:6) who "sat down on the throne of YHWH as king" (1 Chron. 29:23), who everyone bowed down to while also bowing to God (1 Chron 29:20)? Answer: King Solomon. Does all of that taken together make Solomon divine? Of course not! Kings are _representatives_ of God's authority over the people. Jesus was explicit in his words, miraculous deeds and authority all coming from YHWH (John 12:49, John 5:30, Matthew 28:18), whom he called "my God and your God" (John 20:17). Note: YHWH doesn't pray to Jesus. YHWH doesn't say "By myself I can do nothing. I rely on the Son for [insert whatever]". Any notion of 'co-equals' between YHWH and his anointed ruler is what's preposterous, according to Jesus himself. And the OT is as clear as it gets: "I am the LORD (YHWH), and there is none else, there is no God beside me." Two *singular pronouns (I, me).* There is no room for 2 or 3 persons in "I" and "me", period. So again, Licona is just wrong... as are you.

[@JoshuaMSOG7]

@@gmn545 We weren’t arguing for Trinity? We were talking about does OT, Jesus and his apostle point that he was the God of Israel. But no problem, First, YHWH is a proper noun, the personal name of Israel's deity. Second, Elohim is a common noun, used to refer to deity. The Lord declared in Isaiah 43:11, “I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no savior,” yet throughout the New Testament, Jesus is hailed as our Savior. Either He is one with God, or there is more than one true savior. Paul leaves us no doubt, referring to “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” in Titus 2:13. That’s the most obvious and clear sense of the Greek. Jesus is our great God and Savior. In John 1:1, John uses the language of Genesis 1:1 in the Septuagint, saying that the Word was in the beginning (en arche), and explaining that what God was, the Word was. And, he continues, “All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:3-4). And, John tells us, it is this preexistent Word, this Word through which all things were created, which became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). When Jesus was asked the question, “What is the greatest commandment?” he prefaced the answer by quoting the Shema (Mark 12:29). In spite of his strong teaching on the deity of Christ (cf. Col. 2:9), the apostle Paul said emphatically, “there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live” (1 Cor. 8:6a). Jesus claimed to be Yahweh God. YHWH, translated in some versions Jehovah, was the special name of God revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14, when God said, “I AM WHO I AM.” In John 8:58, Jesus declares: “Before Abraham was born, I am.” This statement claims not only existence before Abraham, but equality with the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14. The Jews around him clearly understood his meaning and picked up stones to kill him for blas­pheming (see Mark 14:62; John 8:58; 10:31-33; 18:5-6). Jesus also said, “I am the first and the last (Rev. 2:8). The Holy Spirit is called “God” (Acts 5:3-4). He possesses the attributes of deity, such as omnipresence (cf. Ps. 139:7-12) and omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10, 11). He is associated with God the Father in creation (Gen. 1:2). He is involved with other members of the Godhead in the work of redemption (John 3:5-6; Rom. 8:9-17, 27; Titus 3:5-7). He is asso­ciated with other members of the Trinity under the “name” of God (Matt. 28:18-20). Clearly all over the Bible. If you use hermeneutics, you should know the Bible interprets the Bible and you have to take into consideration ALL OF IT.

[@randomfandom33]

Great debate. Absolutely fantastic, maybe one of the best debates I've ever seen. In the end, I think Licona takes the cake. I never thought, say two years ago, that there could even be a case made for the idea that Jesus didn't claim to be God -- but after thorough analysis from all the relevant evidence, I think that Licona made the better case here, and all in all, the best evidences for Jesus claiming to be God are; 1) Paul viewed Jesus as God, and we know Paul knew Peter, John, and the other pillars and eyewitnesses of the faith and Jesus, so this was the very original view 2) As Licona points out, the apocalyptic Son of Man claims -- Jesus historically claimed to be the Son of Man and that means Jesus thought He was God during His lifetime (in some sense, I guess) 3) If it makes any difference, this not only encompasses the earliest views but ALL the earliest views. Paul thought Jesus was God, the Synoptic Gospels do, John, Hebrews, the early Pauline creed in Phillipians 2, etc, etc, etc. They all say it. What more evidence can we possibly have? If someone doesn't accept these three lines of evidence, then what exactly would it take to convince them? Again, I cannot stress enough how great of a debate this was.

[@chansetwo]

This is an interesting discussion. It's fascinating to see how professor Martin uses historical methodology to seperate what is probably historically accurate in the New Testament, from what is not.

[@fisterklister]

However, historians and bloggers are now increasingly questioning whether the man called Jesus actually existed at all. He may be no more a historical figure than Hercules or Oedipus.

[@gastvier]

to continue from before: On the other side, the most scary thing that being in "hell" can entail according to the christian world view, is not the just punishment for one's own sin. But having to live for eternity seperate from God according to one's own will. As you can imagine, some people would prefer such a God Free condition. Christianity claims that man is not meant to be independent of God. Hell, in other words, is mainly a condition in which man becomes his/her own God for eternity.

[@zerubroberts4251]

I started watching the debate from the middle and it was quite a shock seeing Craig Evans come up

[@tssvid09]

Simply fantastic! ALL believers and followers of Yeshua would do well to observe the stance of Dr. Martin! A trinitarian is telling us that this doctrine isn't Apostolic! If it were taught by an apostle or Yeshua himself, we would have the Biblical evidence and not this heated debate. The idea of trinity/divinity can be "considered", not required, and shouldn't cause division-John 6:69 &Acts 2:22-24 should be declared by believers-Acts2:36 "God has made this Yeshua Master and Messiah"

[@ClayJitsu]

Another great debate, Mike!

[@fisterklister]

Licona is a nut

[@janeroberson4750]

The word was with God and the word was God,and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us, KJV

[@ronfoss9723]

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these .. Please give one example where any Christian has raised the dead, healed the sick, made the blind see, and do so many miracles that would "fill several books"

[@ghytd766]

......Says your book.....

[@tssvid09]

To answer Mr Licona on all of his points :John 5:26 -Yeshua: "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has GRANTED the Son to have life in Himself, and has GIVEN Him authority to execute judegment also because He is the Son of man"...30"I can of myself do nothing...I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me" Yahweh has choosen, appointed and annointed our King, Master, Teacher, the Man Yeshua, because he did what Adam#1 couldn't!! 1Cor.15:20-58 PLZ!!

[@Christian_Maoist.]

Very interesting debate

[@gastvier]

Hi Sir SOA, First can I confirm your views on certain things. Is there any of the facts (which i state to cumulatively point to God) you would argue against: A beginning to matter and universe, finely tuned universe and complexity of life that shows an apparent design, and objective morality. The second one was powerful enough to convince Anthony Flew that there is a God. Or do you wish to say that these things still cumulatively point to an atheistic universe?

[@robertcummins7739]

To the first guy son of man many comments does this mean Psalms 146 is wrong especially verse 3 ? Honest question if anyone can answer this for me.

[@robertcummins7739]

To the second guy Isaiah 11:3 is a messianic verse correct? So the messiah will FEAR god correct? Also another honest question if anyone has an answer please.

[@SOAS007]

"That's not salvation as described in the Bible." what is the salvation in the bible then. From what is one saved?

[@Thomasw540]

The Gospel of Mark is a Roman intelligence report that was written by 40 by Cornelius, the centurion featured in Acts 10. It is not theological in the least. John Mark is a character (the naked youth in Gethsemene), a contributor, an editor and, finally, the publisher in Alexandria, but he didn't write it. He did write the Gospel of John, which is a companion to Mark, and was written closer to 70, when he was in Rome with Peter and Paul. Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman had an ideological purpose to claim that Paul's letters are the first Christian writings, but the fact is that Mark is a follow-on report about the Resurrection, the first of which compelled Tiberius to propose elevating Jesus to the status of a legal deity, which was rejected by the Senate. The term "Christian" is Roman nomenclature exactly like "Jews" and was introduced by Tiberius in Rome before his death in 37. Mark 15, Matthew 27, Luke 23 and John 19 are all Roman testimony from Q, which was the original intelligence file that was initiated when Jesus appeared above the Roman military horizon as a potential insurgent when He was baptized. The Passion elements of the Gospel of Peter were also part of Q and was transmitted to Peter during his debriefing by Cornelius in Acts 10. The chronology of Mark reflects a rigid military protocol and the use of εὐθὺς throughout the narrative is a Roman apparatus connecting Peter's narrative with the chronolgy of Q. The use of the historic present in Mark reflects the nature of the narrative as raw intelligence from Q as reported to Cornelius from his spy networks. Both Pilate and Cornelius are creatures of the Praetorian Guard, which functioned as the Roman State Department, Defense Department, CIA and Judiciary. Theophilus was their direct report in this matter and functioned like George Smiley in John LeCarre's MI6. It is not unimportant that the intelligence report about the Resurrection went up the chain of command at about the same time that the Sejanus plot was exposed (in 31) and Sejanus executed, because Sejanus might have blocked the report from Tiberius, whereas the exposure of the plot renewed Tiberius's bureaucratic instincts to see what else was going on in the Empire that he needed to know about. It is also not unimportant that Peter and Cornelius were brought together at about the same time as the end of Caliguia's reign for the same reason: the Gospel of Mark was not molested by those court intrigues (although what was to become Christianity remained a covert agenda until Constantine). For all intents and purposes, Theophilus became the author of Hebrews, which represents a case study in an intelligence finding, with the 4 Gospels, Acts and the 13 epistles of Paul representing a partial bibliography supporting the conclusions of Hebrews. Hebrews is the founding manifesto of what would become the Holy Catholic Church as contained in the Apostle's Creed. As a historian, it is difficult to understand why Dale Martin cannot recognize the necessity for Mark and Matthew being available to Luke's research in 58 when Paul was imprisoned at Caesarea. It is obvious that Peter introduced Luke to Cornelius and Cornelius introduced Peter, Matthew and Luke to Q and became the intermediary between Luke and Theophilus. It can be inferred from Acts and from his nativity narrative that Luke had thriving OB/GYN practice among Jewish women because Greeks didn't have the gender bias Jewish doctors undoubtedly shared with Peter. The pregancies of Elizabeth and Mary are exactly the sort of waiting room gossip a sympathetic physician would have gleaned that Matthew, for example, totally ignored. Originally, the Gospel of Luke begins at the same place as Mark, with the baptism of Jesus (Luke 3:1) but his research in Palestine while Paul was in Caesarea surfaced a far richer legend. As far as numerology is concerned, Martin needs to stick with history. Sura 74:30 gives the clearest portrait of the mind of The One, "Above it is 19", in all of literature, and 19 is the Alpha and Omega of the numerology of the Bible. In the Beginning was the Word, but, before The Word was, Number IS and Topology is the mathematics of the mind of God. He needs to reduce the 801 of the Greek Gematria for "Dove" to "9", which reflects the divine nature of the Holy Spirit. He needs to display a little humility and remember that history is a subset of literature and the fabric of the literature of the Bible is just chock-full of number that was eternal before calendars were important.

[@JJUSTINMEEHAN]

I was so excited to see these debates posted. I have greatly enjoyed your Yale lectures and was hoping for more insight. You lost this debate. Licona (1st speaker) was very clear and straight forward There are multiple sources from early on. While they may differ in some minor respects, if this was a trial I would be forced to agree with his evidence as “more probable than not”. You’re arguments, often semantic, were more speculative. You never did answer his first question. I expected more but am really disappointed and as an attorney am completely un persuaded by your arguments. I wish I had just stayed with the Yale lectures.

[@tssvid09]

If you refer to the first 8 english translations proceeding the "Authorized Version"(KJV)- you will discover the Logos to be an "it" to these eight translators(Geneva Bible) you heard Licona say that John was a "paraphrased, poetic account" not an "historical" account- In Jn 1:14 the logos "becomes flesh", I would suggest that Yahweh doesn't "become", He IS and doesn't change, or get tempted or die, rather "He was in Messiah Yeshua reconciling the world to Himself"

[@gastvier]

How bout googling "On an objection about Luke, Quirinius, and Herods" and see the first link and see if that sufficiently address your objection. There are many ways reconcile these accounts. Eg., The linguistic data of the last few decades indicate that Luke 2:2 can be translated, “This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” If you turn to this verse in a Bible, you'll likely see a footnote indicating this. In each possibility, the main christian message is unchanged.

[@junevandermark952]

Other than a want-to-be leader of a new cult, would preach at others that a god sent him to earth, to save all humanity from sin?

[@johnpetkos5686]

Dale Martin cites incorrectly?

[@franswa7251]

The video thumbnail photo says it all, in the middle of the fight Dale is daydreaming, the other 2 guys are scrambling. So funny!

[@mmiller4600]

Licona was taught by Habermas not Craig so.....

[@DannyZacharias]

it wasn't a debate

[@geico1975]

Sometimes I wonder, if Biblical historians/modern scholars were the ones to decide of previous church councils, Jesus would've only been human and not divine. I don't know, but I feel like the intellectuals of the Bible make it way more difficult than the Bible was ever intended. For example, talking as a layman, just a normal guy with no Biblical education, the entire NT gospels and the stories of Jesus scream "God with us" Even today, if people witness someone healing cripples, opening blind eyes, curing disease with his touch, etc.. and verified it's real and not a gimmick who the heck wouldn't believe this is more than a simple human being.

[@gor764]

Does Licona have some writings that elaborate his full view of Jesus's self understanding?

[@fisterklister]

do not take this nut seriously

[@shuphay4587]

It seems to be that Dale is comfortable living in a bifurcated space he creates for himself. One that is his day job as a professor, viewing the bible through the historical-critical lens. Another that he inhabits as a Christian. I wonder though if the second space also means he views the bible as the Word of God. I marvel at the ease he walks in and out of the two chambers.

[@mikedunningham9614]

I confess in believing that the possibility of god quite possible and cannot be argued either way successfully. I have great concerns over the validity of the various‘religions’. The largest religion in the world has a massive problem with any critical mind when that mind is presented with an identity of which no contemporary evidence exists. No mention outside the religion itself. Could one of these world class scholars explain, without reinventing logic, how they took their subject further.

[@gastvier]

Hi again, Do note that there is no specific date mentioned in the bible regarding Jesus birth. And how bout reading around the history behind the year numbering itself ? Also, are you one that believe Jesus of Nazareth never existed in the first place? Cheers

[@tssvid09]

Additional refs: Oxford Companion to Bible, New International Theological Dict.- Declare the doctrine of trinity doesn't have Biblical basis. The deity of Christ was declared at Nicea- it's simple history, the Holy Spirit didn't get promoted to Deity/personhood until a hundred years later at Chalcedon. Deut 6:4 should have been adhered to, or at least John17:3- "You are the ONLY true God.."

[@SOAS007]

"Until you answer my question" you asked no question, I am asking a sincere question. What is salvation in the bible.. ( believe or burn). After all nearly all books of the NT shout this.

[@plume2035]

As He lay down His life for us and then took it up again, I think he had some idea. having His Father in Heaven and also being the Creator would have also given Him a clue He was divine.

[@tophers3756]

Did you even listen to Dr. Martin? But sure, writings by people who believed he was god and we're writing specifically to convince others he was god somehow proves Jesus thought he was god? Um, no. Plus your comment assumes the resurrection occurred as proving he thought he was god. That's any awful big (and impossible) assumption to hang your argument on.

[@plume2035]

When someone can PROVE to me Jesus lied, He did not rise from the dead, He did not lay His life down, He did not take the burden of sin on Himself removing the penalty of death from us, when that is proved, I may listen, Until then, I rather trust His Word than any man, that includes you. I don't care if you object, go suck a carrot or something, it changes nothing, My destiny is more important to me than some ideas some man may come up with . I will keep my belief no matter how silly it seems to others, who cares if others do not like it. It is my eternity at stake. You will find out for certain when you die. If I am wrong then its all as a vapour. Up in smoke. I still do not lose. But at least I have something to look forward to.To be right means the world. If you are wrong........ I hate to consider your options.

[@talktomeaboutlife]

I take the same position in reverse. I'm waiting for someone to prove to me that any of the NT accounts are demonstrably true on at leat the most relevant points.

[@carlduffin]

Its an interesting myth.

[@plume2035]

@@carlduffin I don't think all those who knew Him thought that. I think I will go by the eyewitness reports of those who saw and knew Him over you who was not there and did not see or know him. I know who is more relible.

[@SOAS007]

"our original comment was in a mocking tone regarding mafia and godfathers. " Sincerely, in what way is my analogy floored. In christianity,EVERYONE has to believe to be 'saved /protected'. The mafia don't operate a protection racket on everyone.

[@teatimewithshiva]

How does Dr. Dale Martin explain Paul's subordinist christology with his conviction that there is only one god? I don't know how subordinist christology works.

[@tophers3756]

It's usual thought that Paul viewed Christ as a preexisting heavenly entity, possibly angelic, that god selected. Such beings are found throughout Jewish thought of the day. There was nothing like the Trinity in Paul's theology.

[@JacovZ1981]

Many contradictions. If Jesus thought of himself to have a unique relationship with God, then Jesus cannot be ontologically identical to the one he is in a unique relationship with. Simply ignoring language...

[@janeroberson4750]

Jesus said a tree is known by its fruit,look at the fruit coming forth,is it good, or rotten? Jesus is our only hope,if you reject him,while he calls you,if you wait too long , he will quit calling,! And you will never know,untill it's to late to do anything about it!

[@janeroberson4750]

Jesus, said, before Abraham I am.jesus has provided,time an again that he is the son of God, yesterday, today and forever!

[@FocusontheKingdom]

So the Father is YHWH and the Son is YHWH? Doesn't that make 2 YHWHs? Total destruction of the Shema [Deu 6.4; Mar 12.29].

[@joelrodriguez1232]

With all due respect Sir Buzzard, your problem is that you are assuming that Trinitarians are not monotheists. One can assume the Shema [Deu 6.4; Mar 12.29] and still be Trinitarian.

[@radioansite-lafundacioncan5380]

The problem with Dale and with most biblical scholars is the circular reasoning: The followers of Jesus had to invent that the galilean peasant was divine, because the idea could not come from Jesus himself, and why do you know that?, because it was invented by his followers. Dale seems to be unable to realize, from a epistemological point of view, that with such an approach one cannot rule out that Jesus could indeed regard himself as the son of man.

[@Daniel-ts7po]

Claiming that Paul believed that Jesus was divine because he knew people who knew Jesus is not a very strong argument. Paul himself says he didn't receive his gospel from any earthly source but directly from God in a revelation (Gal. 1. v11)

[@handler8838]

Only up to 32:00 but the guy really is bringing nothing to the table, despite great strawman efforts.

[@RudolphBoshoff]

Dr Michael won the spider in the debate @ 1:38.00

[@don26gr]

The funny thing is that Dale Martin believes that Luke,Paul,John believed in the divinity of Jesus but the same time Jesus didn't believe it. So we are talking about a fabrication of christianity by its authors for what reasons?? Hmmmm death, exiles, tortures etc etc.. Nice try Martin!!! In fact he is saying nothing new. That is what atheists or agnostics always used to claim. That Jesus is a historic figure but not God..

[@MikeJunior94]

Ehm, where exactly did he say "fabrication"?

[@don26gr]

BecomingMike Ehm, where exactly did you see me say that he said "fabrication"? On the other hand when someone says that Jesus didn't believe that He was God but the ones who wrote the Bible did, won't you assume that the ones who believed fabricated the story?

[@MikeJunior94]

don26gr You claimed that the only hypothesis for Martin's position is fabrication. Fabrication assume deliberate misleading information. That is not how religions evolve, or even start for the most part. There is a difference between holding a sincere belief about a person or ideal and that what the person or ideal actually holds.

[@don26gr]

BecomingMike "You claimed that the only hypothesis for Martin's position is fabrication" ---Yes that is what everybody can assume from his words "Fabrication assume deliberate misleading information" ---Indeed "That is not how religions evolve, or even start for the most part.." ---Baseless. You have to know every religion which ever existed on this planet to make such a claim. "There is a difference between holding a sincere belief about a person or ideal and that what the person or ideal actually holds." ---True. PS I can't understand what are you trying to tell me..

[@MikeJunior94]

don26gr "Yes that is what everybody can assume from his words" Right, but the assumption is not proper. "Baseless. You have to know every religion which ever existed on this planet to make such a claim." No, read my words better... I said FOR THE MOST PART. There are lots of religions I do not know about, but the ones I do know about have their origins for the most part in cultural, oral traditions. On the other hand, there are cult leaders of today who have followers and if you would have their followers write a testimony about him they would make sincere claims. Yet, these claims could be wrong. There are seriously more than 5 ways in which religions and mythologies start, it is not just a matter of fabrication and truth. "PS I can't understand what are you trying to tell me.." That people can be sincerely wrong. I said this in regards to your fabrication claim, becauses that is deliberate deception.

[@michaelfalsia6062]

Ancient heresies never die. And Dale is certainly doing his part keeping Satans work alive. Tragic, eternally tragic. Revelation 6:12-17; 29:11-15 are indeed terrible warnings of what is to come.

[@tssvid09]

I'm thinking you didn't hear a word he said. Didn't you hear Mr Licona agree the need to use the phrase "in some sense" when referring to Yeshua's "deity"- He agreed to subordinate theology- "God has a God"??! Mk15:34, Mt28:18,Jn20:17,Acts2:20, Icor15..etc- I believe that you are not listening to Dr. Martins declarations of faith, as He has just delivered one of the most insightful testimonies of how Christology should be handled. Yale has nothing to do with his personal testimony!

[@supersmart671]

Subordinate, does it mean he is not equal?

[@SOAS007]

"are you one that believe Jesus of Nazareth never existed in the first place?" I thought he was born in bethlehem ( or is that just Mat & Lukes gospel writers making stuff up to fulfill prophecy. The fact that these awkward claims are made probably meant someone called (Joseph , better translation), probably did exist. But the bias claims of virgiin births, miracles, and resurections, ane consistant with god claims in antiquity, and are no more impresive or likely than e.g. Romulous

[@seankennedy4284]

Dr. Martin sure prejudices the veracity of his OWN assumption---i.e. Jesus, had he ACTUALLY thought himself divine, would have directly stated as much. Says who?

[@jessepelaez874]

The fact that Mark has the resurrection scene is all the proof one needs to conclude he is preexistent. The one who ascended first descended. John isnt any different than Mark, both dont have virgin births and john is just making it clear while adding his own spin on it. Notice how John starts his gospel how Mark ended his.

[@dorianmodify]

No Jew believed any being he or she was equivalent to Yahweh. There are many (new) PhD theses about what constitutes a "divine" being. When the Witch of Endor, in Kings, conjures the shade of Samuel, she says she sees a "divine being". That IN NO WAY meant the shade was equivalent to Yahweh. Jesus NEVER claimed to be a divine being, and his disciples never bought that crap.

[@tssvid09]

Do you have ONE verse stating your claim of "the main point of the entire Bible"?, or is that YOUR opinion? Please explain: John 4:24 Jesus says "God is spirit", Luke 24:39 Jesus says of himself "I am NOT spirit but flesh and bone.." Numbers 23:19 "God is not man nor the son of man"(Jesus='son of man'-MT12:40,16:27,MK2:10...), Hosea 11:9-"I am God NOT man"- Lets remember-Acts2:36"Yahweh MADE Yeshua Lord and Messiah" Respectfully, please provide verses for your claim!

[@kerygmatix]

Adela Yarbo Collins on Mark 10:17-18... The man who runs up and kneels before Jesus addresses him as “good teacher” (διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ). This address implies that Jesus is pleasing to God and can show others how to become so. If this verse is Dale's #1 proof text against Jesus' divinity (ok, whether He claimed to be divine) then I must defer to Licona's conclusions. I do wonder what Jesus did claim to be, if not divine, after walking on the water...maybe magic, and does He do children's parties...lol

[@myopenmind527]

Licona is out of his depth. He is unable to think on his feet. Not in the same league as Dale Martin.

[@kmurphy0620]

Just a heads up: Non-historical means it isn't reasonable to believe is true without more evidence than humans have at this time. Wow, how uncertain and stammering Michael Licona was in answering his final question from the guest. I think you have to want to agree with him by the end to actually believe he made the strongest argument.

[@scottbignell]

Very interesting this one. I really respect Martin, even though, as an agnostic, I find his "faith" makes no sense to me. Glad to see it doesn't affect his scholarship though. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Licona who seems to refuse to budge at all on his pre-determined conclusion. That said, he is an excellent apologist. A fine disciple of Lane Craig, Mr. BS himself. It's just a shame he can't apply his skill-set to actually critically evaluating his own beliefs. Ah well.

[@kamelalhassani4609]

He is doing his job, he is telling people do not be stupid. Surly he believes what he teaches. Not what he tells, I believe. Because it is clear he is a very clever gay.

[@mystery7777777777]

Philippians 2:6-8 "Who, being in very nature[a] God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man" Yahweh coming to live with his people, Isaiah 40:3, Zechariah 2:10.

[@gmn545]

Divine? Yes and no. According to the text, Jesus didn't think he was YHWH, the God of Israel. He addressed God (the Father) as "...you, the ONLY true God" (John 17:3). Jesus was aware that he was an emissary of God, sent "in His name" (i.e. by the authority of God) to carry out the missions of vicarious redemption and ushering in the kingdom of God. Licona ignores the fact the 'Son of Man' in Daniel is clearly *distinct* from YHWH (the 'Ancient of Days', Dan. 7:13). Jesus being "at the right hand of God" means he serves as God's anointed ruler (messiah). This make him essentially what Joseph was in Egypt. Genesis 41:40-44... 1) Pharaoh sets Joseph over all his house and decrees that all people will obey the commands of Joseph. 2) He has authority over all the land of Egypt, rides next to Pharaoh's chariot while all people must "bow the knee" before him. 3) Pharaoh decrees that nobody shall lift a hand or foot except Joseph says so. ... YET, in verse 40, Pharaoh makes one thing clear: "Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you." Joseph is appointed by Pharaoh's to serve as his ruler over Egypt, but this did NOT make Joseph 'Pharaoh.' In the same way, Paul makes it very clear that Jesus, as God's anointed ruler (the second 'lord' of Psalm 110) who God places all authority & enemies under his feet, IS NOT GOD NOR EQUAL TO GOD but is ultimately subordinate to God (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

[@ecritdelajaponographie8565]

Umm ... did you even watch the debate? It's a little more complicated than that. You seem to just be accepting all the NT sources as being historically accurate.

[@credenzabelladonna-fatale2487]

This "God in some sense" recalls Dr Evan's "in a certain qualified sense"-how is that saying anything? In multiple senses, some unqualified, an apple is a tomato. In the sense that they start with "st", stoicism is string theory is step-dancing is strangulation.

[@gastvier]

Hi sir, One main thing is often missed when one talks about salvation in the christian world view. The most valuable which is offered in heaven is not being free of pain or having all one's need fulfilled, but being with God for the rest of eternity with a restored relationship. If one does not love God and would rather wish to be one's own saviour / God, then such a heaven is more like an eternal prison. "Believe" in Jesus also entails wishing for this vertical relationship restored.

[@tssvid09]

Dear friend, if it was that simple none of the councils would have been held, Calvin wouldn't have burnt Servetus at the stake for rejecting the trinity, and these most learned men wouldn't be here exchanging views and researching this topic as aggressively as they have! You statement seems a bit boastful and unstudied. Please invest a bit more time researching and see what you find (We don't even know who authored John)

[@Yesica1993]

Until you answer my question, I am not going to take up my time.

[@PollisDrake]

All this talk of John and Paul's views of the pre-existent Christ. Its like George and Ringo's Christologies don't even matter.

[@scottharrison812]

Licolna regrettably comes across as a lightweight

[@cmk1964]

It doesn't matter whether Jesus thought he was divine, or if the disciples, Paul, the Church Fathers, and whoever else, thought that Jesus was divine, the fact is that they were all deluded and decidedly wrong. The truth of the matter is that one cannot even argue the topic in the first place, because there is no way that one can verify what is written in the Gospels. The Gospel authors, (whoever they were), wrote whatever they did, but there is no way one can know whether they fabricated what they wrote, or if they incorrectly believed what they wrote, or if it was actually what Jesus thought, said, or did. I could write a biography about Bonaparte and say that he won the battle of Waterloo. That would be incorrect, and could easily be proved incorrect by historical documents, and various other sources. I could also write a biography about someone who I never actually knew, allegedly based on unknown sources, and I can say whatever I like. I can fabricate, twist, invent, and so on, and there is no way that this can be tested simply because there is nothing to test it against. This is the position of the Gospels.

[@cmoesta3176]

+Christopher Kennedy Actually the position of the Gospels is, "We witnessed these certain amazing things and you can ask these named people for their testimony." Just because we have very little access to anything from that time period today doesn't mean the Gospels were produced in an environment where their claims couldn't be verified. You claim they were written by people who did not know Jesus and used sources that were unknown but this is merely conjecture even at the academic level.

[@cmk1964]

Y

[@sali1029]

Christopher Kennedy, I couldn't agree more.

[@jonathandutra4831]

Sounds like Dale is cherry picking.

[@hero39102]

I ask Michael Licona if Jesus was god or divine "in some sense", why should God telling him alone (and this is not historical) at his baptism that ‘You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.’ (Mark 1:11?). Was he not his son Before that?? Your arguments are very weak. I Think also that the strongest phrase in Mark is in 12:29 "Jesus answered, ‘The first is, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one".... and 32 "Then the scribe said to him, ‘You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that “he is one, and besides him there is no other".

[@sammylacen1062]

"We are not asking if Jesus is divine, we are asking if Jesus believe he was divine?" So, Jesus could be divine and he didn't knew? GREAT! The authors of the gospel believe that Jesus was divine, wrote about Jesus with this conception but we don't know if he was concious of his divinity?... Omg...

[@maddyboombaddybaddy6532]

Exactly. It's freakin ridiculous.

[@____9101]

In my view, this is an exact and clear answer

[@Yesica1993]

I sure did. Your original comment was in a mocking tone regarding mafia and godfathers. Therefore, I asked you if you were here only for that purpose (to mock) or to have a sincere discussion about an important topic.

[@JacovZ1981]

Dale's logic is immensely impressive. I've never seen Licona to be as weak and naive in his approach. It's the kind of "I believe in Santa Clause" kind of rhetoric you hear from children. Soft evidence, weak arguments, and clearly a victim of his own religious sentimentality. Embarrassingly weak...

[@dantejager9296]

Man not at all, you just don't see Dale's bias working in his presumptions. Licona did awesome.

[@Yesica1993]

It's amazing how complicated people make this issue, when all you have to do is read the first verse of the gospel of John.

[@tssvid09]

Yeshua and Shaul were both first century Jews upholding first century Judaic laws and neither could be successfully charged with any violation of Mosaic or Roman law excepting the proclamation of Yeshua's claim to Messiahship(Kingship)This simple historical fact should give insight that all N. T. writings should be viewed without Graeco-Roman philosophical lenses! Neither of them thought of dual natures or hypostatic unions, these weren't ideas they were familiar with, but Messiahship- u bet!

[@jayd4ever]

the new testament clearly teaches Jesus was divine

[@greglogan7706]

+Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius “Hemu Rawal Domitian” Julian Venizelos Nalwa Huh?!?

[@jayd4ever]

Greg Logan that Jesus was divine

[@rodneyscales195]

Yes that true but did Jesus said he was God. Only in John he said he was God. In the first Three Gospel the authors tell you Jesus is God but Jesus don’t tell you he God.

[@AshrafAnam]

Not paying attention 5:39

[@gastvier]

Well, I gave you some cumulative arguments already to support the existence of a God. I think it points out that believing in a theistic universe is not a baseless position but a rational one. Feel free to address/ignore them if you want. Its in part 2 of my respond to you from 1 week ago. Cheers, Happy new year.

[@williamcarter7977]

"In some way"! 😇😎😉

[@janeroberson4750]

You need the holy spirit in you ,to teach you,why do you lie ,about Jesus, because you are of your father the devil, you will not prevail ,praise God,and my Lord Jesus Christ,the son of God and savior of the world! Thank you Jesus for your gift of eternal life,thank you God for your mercy ,and long-suffering on the wicked ,give them every chance to repent , before the great judgement,and eternal damnation!thank you God,thank you Jesus my Lord and savior!!!

[@Yesica1993]

That's not salvation as described in the Bible. If you have a sincere interest, I am happy to discuss it. If your purpose is only to mock, I won't waste my time or yours. Let me know.

[@TorianTammas]

Isnt this a bog claim for a preacher and a criminal who was sentenced to death because of rebellion against ROme as he or other claimed that he was the king of the jews?

[@tssvid09]

John20:31"These are written that you may believe that Yeshua is Messiah, the SON of the living God"- note- it does not say that "you may believe that God incarnated as man"John 17:2,3 "as you(Father) have GIVEN Him(Yeshua) authority over all flesh....'that they may know you THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Yeshua Messiah WHOM YOU SENT"John 20:17 "I am ascending to My Father and your Father, MY GOD and your God"- Yeshua has a God!! Please provide 1 verse about "dual nature" or Yahweh coming to earth

[@aservantofJEHOVAH7849]

Psalms83:18"that men may know that thou,whose name ALONE is JEHOVAH,art the MOST HIGH over all the earth." Note please that there is but one named JEHOVAH. Note also that this one the MOST HIGH. Thus if ones God is associated with two equals (e.g the trinitarian Jesus). He is not the Lord JEHOVAH.

[@GodwardPodcast]

Jesus clearly was not illiterate.

[@gbett22]

Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, His blood being shed not for a part of the world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet He holds out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception He summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.

[@worldpeacepatriot9448]

Yes , this Jesus has obviously become profoundly influential largely from fortuitous circumstances and first century influeners like Paul who erroneously believed this christ was going to return in his lifetime which did not happen even until now ! As this promise was not fulfilled in the time promised it is highly unlikely to ever happen at the chagrin of the countless millions of Christians and their apologists ! Time to get real and abandon this erroneous wishful expectation !

[@thatdevilguy]

For the equivalence of this debate see, did Thor create thunder.

[@gavinperris1]

It do sent really matter what brand you buy into, we are a children of the earth with certen human rights. It is easer for a wealth man to pass through the eye of a needle then for him to pass the gates of heaven. So why do we lesson to our governments they are wealth people with lost morals, yet we are expected to hold a licence to do certain things like have a dog, go fishing, watch TV drive on the land we were born on. We are the children of the king and require no premishion from anybody

[@willcollier6623]

Christ knew He is Devine . Jesus knew He was a man. He ONLY did what His Father DID. He ONLY said what His ( and our ) Father said.

[@smartrecords4881]

Jesus said, I have come down from heaven to do his father's will and not his own.

[@ounkwon6442]

Where is this 'heaven'? How did he come down? Riding on a chariot? Which Jesus?

[@AtheismTheNewGimmickAmerica]

debate

[@gastvier]

Part4: So to conclude, in the christian worldview, God does reveal himself through the bible and real historical events. Part of God's character that is revealed, can indeed be understood. We christians, are not invited to love a God that is distant and only demands. But one that actually came to us first while we were his enemies. Even with all the evidence of God's existence and loving purpose however, one is still given the freedom to choose to respond or not. As in a real relationship.

[@MikeJunior94]

1:44:28 anyone else here that thinks this only makes it more confusing? I mean, all humans have large portions of their DNA incommon... but we are not all the same being. It really only confuses things.

[@ounkwon6442]

Yes, but... What do we mean by 'divine'? Unless we define any word clearly, any argument on the subject of the word remain vacuous. Is it possible that anyone believe he/she is 'divine'? Yes, but.... Jesus, the embodiment of the word and the will of Elohim, did think, believe, or feel that he is 'divine'?! Men made Jesus God from third century on to become the Trinitarian Constantine Church to which billions Christians now belong, i.e. God Jesus religion. As to the term 'Lord', it is not the highest title. Anyone can be 'lord' to anyone. e.g. a lord to a servant. It has nothing to do with 'God' per se. 'LORD' does not mean 'Jehovah'. (NIV has not a single place for the God's name. KJV has a handful of 'Jehovah'. For their deficient brain, it translates 'The LORD is my name'. yah yah.