Thursday, November 01, 2012

Licona & Martin: Did Jesus Believe He Was Divine?

In this audio, Michael Licona (Houston Baptist University) and Dale Martin (Yale University) dialogue on the topic of “Did Jesus Believe He Was Divine?” This dialogue was held at Acadia University on October 19th, 2012. Hosted by Religion SoupYouTube video is here.

Full Dialogue MP3 Audio here (2 hr)


  1. Kokon November 1, 2012

    Please help me getting something straight, I believe this guy claims himself a Christian….So is he an ultra liberal or just an agnostic-atheist???

  2. ferlans November 1, 2012

    Who? Michael Licona?

  3. Kokon November 2, 2012

    Lol no the other dude 🙂

  4. Jambrez November 13, 2012

    (@ Kokon) Neither. He comes across as reasonably conservative. He believes in the trinity, just not that Jesus taught this about himself, as recorded in the gospels.
    Martins claim is that Jesus did'nt teach his divinity or claim it. (even though as a christian he believes it from elsewhere)
    He makes a valid point, and I think personally provided the better argument.. the best Licona could do (as he stated in his opening) is say Christ did 'to some degree'

  5. Anonymous June 4, 2013

    I didn't find Dale's arguments particularly strong. He kept rejecting Michael's "multiple atteststion" argument by saying that he simply gave passages in synoptic gospel where adoptionism was supported more weight than all other passages about "Jesus being divine from the beginning of time" combined because the scribes and editors of the early manuscripts or author wanted to preach the non-adoptionism theology, so any passage contrary to that should carry more weight. This is what I don't agree with: if he makes the assumptions that Mark and Paul and Q authors all in fact "edited" or "colored" the teaching of Jesus with their own agenda, why wouldn't they simply edit out all these adoptionism verses altogether? Second, according to Dale's own logic, wouldn't the existence of these verses validate not just the authenticity of these verses, but in fact the entire book they were found in? If these verses did in fact validate the authenticity of these books, how could Dale then go about denying other parts of these books all for the convenience of supporting his own points selectively?