How a History Professor Changed Her Mind About the Resurrection | Molly Worthen at Texas A&M 

Let me summarise your comment. She's got letters after her name, so whatever she says about anything, however preposterous, we plebs need to take it seriously.

@@houmm08 Bart Ehrman an equally qualified scholar has argued with the best evangelical scholars on the resurrection and he has become such a pain that they have created a special channell to defend themselves Bart suggests reading the gospels horizontally. If you do that with the resurrection accounts you find contradictions. In Matthew it is an angel sitting on the rock, in Mark it is ONE angel inside the tomb and in Luke it is TWO angels INSIDE the tomb. John's gospel i equally confusing.

@@houmm08 In Matthew and Marks gospel accounts the two thieves badger him but come to Luke there is a long comment. How was that remembered. Did someone have pitman's shorthand "I say unto you today thou shalt be with me in paradise" This passage is used in debates among Christians as to whether man has a soul. Did that thief go to heaven? But it seems Jesus had not ascended yet?

@@houmm08 No, that is not at all what I’m saying. That would be an appeal to authority. What I’m saying is: when an expert in an area speaks to a matter within their area of expertise, they are not guaranteed to be correct. However, detractors need to explain where, specifically, the alleged expert has gone wrong. Perhaps you could show all of us where - specifically, in your view- this historian has clearly erred?

@@noelhausler2911 And Bart Ehrman’s critiques have been answered by NT scholars (as evidenced by numerous books, blogs, websites, and debates.)

Exactly how Jesus predicted….🙏Amen!

Because her pronouncements are seriously problematic - as anyone who is involved in apologetics already is aware. As a Christian theist, I can see through her reasoning with very little effort. Tribalism is not a good look for one who is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth - a man - attested to by God.

​@@greglogan7706what are you trying to say? She's speaking from the POV of an actual historian.

Yes, I noticed the mockery and condescension in many comments from the willing-to- avoid truly listening.

@@greglogan7706?

What you have said totally resonated with my own coming to faith process as I was studying the historical evidence that supports the trustworthy accuracy of the biblical narratives. One of the big WOW moments for me was that NO ONE who was an eyewitness denied that Jesus had the power to work miracles, not even his enemies but what they did instead was attribute the supernatural power at work to the devil. It was not only Christians who testify to these facts, even in the Jewish Talmud there are some coded references to Jesus of Nazareth who is mentioned to be a Sabbath breaker, blasphemer, and Sorcerer who was accursed of God by his hanging upon a tree in crucifixion. Another WOW moment for me was the recognition that the newly hewn tomb out of the rock had only one entrance or exit and the body was entombed there the tomb sealed up by rolling a massive stone disc to cover the opening. Jesus's enemies put a Roman guard to ensure that the disciples could not steal the body and then claim that he had been resurrected, because they themselves had heard him prophesy that he would be. This means that all the Jewish or Roman authorities had to do to totally discredit and debunk the claims of the apostles to Jesus's resurrection was to present his dead body. They had the tomb completely under their control and possession and yet there was no body in the open tomb. The only adequate explanation for this along with the mighty power of God at work through the apostles who proclaimed publicly at great personal risk to themselves, that Jesus has been resurrected, was that they were telling the absolute truth! The so called Passover Plot conspiracy theory was used as propaganda against the followers and disciples of Jesus and was a falsehood from the start and falls to pieces when examined closely, in fact ALL the attempts at finding a non supernatural explanation for the events recorded in the gospels are complete failures, even retreating into doubt and uncertainty about how credible the sources of information we have does not work as we have multiple independent corroborating sources, even if each of the sources have slight variations and imperfections in their recollections.

@@user-bl7oe2md4p I can only describe a ‘Wow’ moment as like a baseball bat strike to my head. (Without the pain, just the reverberation) Some of the meaning within Scripture can be hidden in plain sight. Many times, you can read and re-read something and still not get it. Then the Holy Spirit, out of the blue, flicks a switch and BOOM! You read the passage again and think “How did I miss that!” I do admit, I am a sinner and fall far short of the glory of God. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would be sent as a helper to all those that believe in Him. I know that I am being helped and guided, but also know that I am still a work in progress. (But not my works, the Holy Spirit) God Bless you brother. 🙏

​@@user-bl7oe2md4pThe non- supernatural explanation is that the gospels are stories created without any significant evidence just like everything you and the originial poster just said about them. Early christians were no better than modern christians.

Wow, you read the gospels with a presupposition that they were true. So not much of a Wow that you found them to be Wow.

How can he Shroud of Turin be relevant to whether or not the impossible is impossible? Of what syllogism could anything-at-all about he Shroud of Turin be a premise? Depending on your breeding wits and learning you may or may not have the information that a particular bit of evidence or information is " relevant" if it can form one or another of the premises of a syllogism

In Matthew two Marys arrive witness the stone being rolled away and encounter an angel sitting on the rock. In Mark two Marys and Salome arrive see the tomb is already open and encounter one angel. In Luke three + women arrive see the tomb open and walk in and encounter two angels. In John Mary arrives sees the tomb open and gets peter and john who come and check the tomb and leave (wonder where the angels went?) They leave. Mary later sitting outside the tomb looks from outside and sees two angels. Peter and John just missed them? Who would have provided the writers with the information of what happened? Points of view can be wrong. I have moments when I get further information see where I was wrong.

@@noelhausler2911 I have seen witnesses in criminal cases see very different things and that then creates a problem for the prosecution.

@@JD-HatCreekCattleCo You mean the two Marys would tell each gospel writer a different story? I wonder what Bart Ehrman would make of your theory . I must ask him.

She is an American history professor who also teaches about Christianity in American history. History is the investigation through literary multiple sources to construct a story or events of the past. However, if there are conflicts or contradictions, you would not include that story or explain that the truth cannot be known but share the different variants.

@@michaelhenry1763 So two Mary's tell the writer of Matthew's gospel the angel was sitting on the rock while the two Mary's and Salomi in Mark say nothing about seeing the rock being rolled away. an invitation "Come and see where he lay" Matt28:6 Mark 16:5 And they entered the tomb and saw a young man (no invitation) Luke they enter notices no body and two men suddenly appear. Bart Ehrman who also teaches the Bible in a University disagrees and has debated with a number of evangelicals. Also was there was person knowing pitman's shorthand standing under the cross. ?

If this is the single most important fact that any human being could know why does it require years of in depth study of ancient history, ancient literature and ancient religion to even begin assessing how likely it is to be true? You would think God could come up with something better if it's so important that we know about this.

@@anaccount8474 That is just what this person had to go through because she had to overcome considerable learned defense mechanisms. For others who are not so defensive it's much simpler.

You are merely saying she lies well.

@@vhawk1951kl No, that's what you are saying.

@vhawk1951kl just because she is saying something you don’t agree with doesn’t mean she is lying. Go on, attack her ideas but don’t lower yourself to ad homonym.

Well, the writings of Paul are first hand accounts and he met directly with Peter, a direct disciple of Jesus, and is thoroughly mentioned in those NT gospel accounts and Acts, and with James the brother of Jesus. James the brother of Jesus gets cited by Josephus and there are a number of other accounts external to the NT writings that mention James the brother of Jesus. These are all very impressive aspects of historicity to history academics in respect to the ancient world time period. And so Paul cites not only his personal experience of encountering Jesus, but he recounts others that he knew of directly that saw Jesus as alive in the aftermath of his having been put to death by crucifixion (in one case he mentions there was a group of 500 that together saw the risen Jesus - Paul traveled twice to meet with James and Peter in Jerusalem and spent a few weeks to compare notes, so to speak, so he definitely had the opportunity to hear lots of such accounts from these original Christians). Were Peter and James the brother of Jesus real people? Paul says in his first person writings that they are, and so does the author of Luke and Acts, etc., etc. And of course the author of Acts accords that Paul was an actual person. Lots of multi-attestation all way round. And of course there is still the Shroud of Turin that forensically accords with the NT account of what was done to Jesus.

Incorrect. There are various documented accounts of Jesus and his activities, influence and divinity But we must Always remember… With atheism, comes a passion to hate Jesus. In the faith people Follow that God is Love. So if an atheist claims Love is insignificant, the issue isn’t about documentation on Jesus. This atheist ego adds into people’s deflection from Caring about these experiences with Jesus .

Well, I'm not sure what an "account" of the Resurrection would even look like outside of a Christian context. If I had to guess - it seems obvious to me, our presenter probably thinks the Gospels are historically reliable. Considering she cited the work of Richard Bauckham, she would probably deny that the Gospels do not contain any eyewitness testimony.

Read the Gospel of John. And try Price’s intro to his translations.

Of course. We had cameras. And also irrelevant.

@@georgewagner7787 How so? It means we have morer streams of evidence for the civil war than for thee resurrection

Something that happened 1800 years later. Where we had pictures, a printing press. Do you even understand how hard it is for something to survive 2000 years, 3500 years for the old testament. The Holy Land area has been under so many different hands in 2000 years, so many things get destroyed. We found the Gospel of Thomas in 1945, we knew one existed but never had the text, then the dead sea scrolls found randomly in the desert that have perfect Greek gospels the earliest ever found that match the gospels we have today. Read Luke, archeologist use Luke to find important sites close or in the holy land, super detailed writing. He is clearly a different author than the other 3 gospels.

The difference between the Civil War and the so-called resurrection, is the the civil war was not a physical impossibility.There is no esential difference between jesus rising from the dead and jesus eating his own head sandwiched between two unicorns. There simply*cannot* be any evidence of either.

This is your contribution?

It is a bit much. Far to expressive

Irrationality?? She is an historian and she is not a christian. She is just look at the Gospels through an historical view. Your analogy is fallacious. Aladdin was not a historical person, there is no historical ir acheological record of his life. You are just saying nonsense. Being irrational is believing that the entire Universe came magically from nothing and by blind and that all things ordered themselves into a such vast, orderly, beautiful, complex, marvelous, tangible, mathematical structured, fine tunned Cosmos with natural laws and mechanisms and with bilions of galaxies, planets, stars, solar systems, supernovas, black wholes, atoms, sub-atomic particles, chemistry, biology, genetics, life, evolution itself, biodiversity, information, counscious, rational, moral and loving beings. That's a logical nonsense.

@@hugofernandes8545 .... hahahaha....🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

You can start by telling us the life of Mohammad as a starting point. Even I don’t know you at all, I probably respect you more than the Mohammad of the Quran. On your mark, get set, go…. Tell us about Mohammad .

This channel is so cool!!! No ads!! 😂

@Robert - It was actually very disappointed.

@@greglogan7706…because it was lacking in reason or something❔

She is *Lying*-fine if you like liars and parties to con tricks.

It was written 40 years after Jesus’ death. The author of Mark was not a very good writer. This is why we see Matthew and Luke expand, change, and correct Mark.

@@michaelhenry1763 They could do that? What was the synoptic problem again?

@@noelhausler2911 yes, they could do that. The synoptic problem is the attempt to untangle the literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Mark was written first. Matthew was written second incorporating 90% of Mark into its gospel. Matthew copied some passages verbatim, others he expanded and changed, and Matthew added his own material. Luke, like Matthew, used Mark as a source. 62% of Mark is found in Luke. Luke and Matthew also share material in common that is not found in Mark. Most ( roughly 60%) of scholars think Matthew and Luke referenced a common sayings source called “Q”. The other roughly 40% of scholars think Luke used Matthew as a source. Luke also includes unique material. The gospel writers did not form their gospels independently of each other. They are similar because they copied from the same sources.

Of course, they were meant, as they state, to deepen the faith of the communities they address. But the reductionist claim that therefore there is no real history in the Gospels, is untenable. This is what Prof Worthen is addressing, IMO. All history, even so-called objectivist modern history, is perspectival and told with intention, to help us to understand our place in the present, in some way.

@@scottwatson8659 Nobody said there is “ no history “ in the gospels.

And painful to listen to

Perhaps she developed that style in order to keep the attention of contemporary university students.

You must hate italian restaurants too

I also find her to overwhelming., even though she is interesting but to much. Over welming

@@juneschlebusch6679 I do!

Belief in Romulus never changed anyone's life.

@@georgewagner7787 That's not the point.

That’s on account of all the schoolin’……she’ll have her moment 🙌🙏

Educated people tend to do that.

N.T. Wright, "The Resurrection of the Son of God" (Fortress Press 2003). I read it about 10 years ago, but good to be reminded how good it is.

@@danieldoherty5034 there's a lot of theological problems with Wright, he backed a book/wrote a forward to a book by Steve Chalke - ''the lost words of Jesus'' - which declared God is a 'cosmic child abuser' ....and Christ not being the once for all substitute on the cross for mans sin

What evidense, its all hearsay. Written 40 years after the fact.

Oh geez...your comment simply reflects an ego-centric tribalism.

Examining the evidence does not amount to "ethno centric tribalism."..- ( tautologist ?) I venture neither does it resort well to American snobbery?

@@greglogan7706 Did the reports of what was happening on the cross between the two thieves and Jesus require someone down below who knew pitman's shorthand? "I say unto you today thou shalt be with me in paradise " Is there a comma needed somewhere which would cast doubt on the existence of the soul. A number of evangelicals at Fuller Seminary and elsewhere don't accept that man has a soul. See Nancy Murphy ed Whatever Happened to the Soul? Does a comma come after "you" or "today"?

@@phillipsugwas Sorry my friend - this is as weak a "critical" examination as possible - shocking she is employed. Ehrman has gone over the failure in these kinds of approaches countless times - She is NOT respecting the basic historical approach - but evidently desperately wants something to be true Either God has manifested to her - or not - for our faith is NOT based in the wisdom of men's words (the "evidences" she claims) - but in the POWER OF GOD!

Exactly It's still a leap to believe in the supernatural

N.T.Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God. As she said, it's very thorough but not always an easy read.

That old canard that "if you believe that miracle, then you must believe all alleged miracles" is absurd. People repeat it without thinking about the shoddy reasoning behind it

@@mbb--it is NOT absurd. Why is Mohammed ascending to heaven any different than Jesus resurrection? They are both extremely unlikely, to the point of impossibility. You just have a bias toward YOUR particular miracle. Of course you just happened to be born into the “one true faith”, right? 🙄

@@theunknownatheist3815 The body of Christ had/has no earthly grave, no rotting body - the tomb was empty.... while Mohammed was buried, did have a grave, a decomposing mortal body ; nor was he was seen as, or declared himself God

The preponderance of nonsense has led them to that delusion

@@mbb--my superstition is better than yours 🙄

No that's exactly what she said didn't happen between 1 and 2 minutes.

@@georgewagner7787 and yet that's what she was doing.

If you think you don't rationalize what you want to believe, then you lack self awareness

In what world do you decide to separate an endeavor in rationality and what you choose to believe as true and false. You would propose discarding rationality in pursuit of beliefs?

@@gsytrey you can rationalize your beilfs with facts and critical thinking instead of myths.

Exactly!

It's N.T Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God

@@mbb-- thanks, really appreciate it

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Widely respected. This is part of an in depth, scholarly series on Christian origins.

@@terrytigner9600 Thank you so much! I work at a theological library and just saw that they've got it, so I'll check it out :)

what is "honest" about a fraudulent put-up-job pseudo interview which is a complete fraud- the old I-have-changed-my-mind con?There is and cannot be any evidence of the impossible; there is *absolutely_no*difference between the resurrection lie and the jesus ate his own head lie. If it*cannot* be true -is impossible, it *Is* not true, and what do we call people that say things that are not true? You got it, you sing out loud when you know the answer.

Check out NT Wright’s “Simply Jesus” if you want more about this historical perspective. It’s a much shorter read than his tome “The Resurrection of the Son of God” (mentioned in the video).

Name does NOT check out. 🙄

The Gospels

@@TiaKruimel Thank you

@@douglasschafer6372 Anytime 😊

The Resurrection of the Son of God by N T Wright. I think that was the book she mentioned at the beginning.

Try Jesus and the Eyewitness Accounts by Richard Bauckham...

You mean preaching in schools? That sounds gross and unconstitutional.

While I agree that wokeness is garbage- this is almost as bad. The woke and the religious teach things as true only because they were told it was true. Both have no correspondence to reality.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is quite different. For one thing, throughout his ministry He predicted his ultimate demise and subsequent resurrection. And His resurrection was an affirmation from God the Father that Jesus was precisely who He claimed to be. And, there were hundreds of eye witnesses to the post mortem appearances of Jesus.

@@jake5811 How did they manage to lose hundreds of eyewitness accounts? Those would have been fairly sought after and they had a few decades to collect and preserve them in writing the time. It's a bit like how no-one really knows where the tomb of Jesus's burial and his resurrection is located. It should really have been a major Christian holy site from day one, how did that slip people's minds who were alive at the time?

@@Enzo012------What you are inferring is that the authors of the Gospels and the letters and epistles of Paul, James, Peter, etc. in the New Testament were composed to deceive, mislead, and fool. That is what you are presupposing. And I find this viewpoint cynical, absurd, illogical, and irrational. You have not done your homework on this topic.

@@Enzo012 finding Jesus’ tomb was never important because he rose from the dead. And recording 100s of witnesses wouldn’t make a difference to one who doesn’t believe. As Jesus said to Simon, Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven

@@jake5811 The New Testament wasn't written by eyewitnesses that's generally well accepted, but I would be genuinely interested to know to all the eyewitness material they must have had at the time all went and why wasn't the tomb of Jesus seen to be a location of any special interest? You'd think that would be the most significant place of pilgrimage for Christians around the world from the 1st century onwards. Personally I don't think it was deliberately concocted as a lie. It'll be something that developed over time from a blending of Jewish and Roman pagan spiritual beliefs, but that's a long story.

Got a list of all the other cons where the conman purposefully angers the authorities to the extent he gets himself tortured and killed? Then all his partners do the same, one after the other?

Yeah, most cons end not so well. Judas probably had enough of Jesus' bull, and that's what did him in.

Jesus appeared to his brothers (previously skeptics, didn't believe in Him) and also to Saul (who was actively killing Christians at the time). If Jesus hadn't appeared to skeptics and enemies in addition to His followers I think you would have a valid point. Even then, the followers of Jesus were all absolutely sure they saw Jesus alive in many instances over an extended period of time, ending in Him visibly ascending to heaven.

First off, you can only say that Paul claims to have had a vision of Jesus, not that “Jesus appeared” to someone. And Paul is not a credible person anyway. Whatever Jesus’ brothers may or may not have seen or what their motivations were we have no firsthand accounts. A couple of the “appearances” in the Bible were actually strangers and it later dawned on the followers that they had “really” met Jesus. So again I state: a real badass move would have been appearing in the Sanhedrin or Temple for ALL to see and not incognito as the gardener or something. Then they could say, hey, that’s the dude we killed 3 days ok!

@@theunlearnedastronomer3205 You say Paul isn't credible, but he spent the next 40+ years of his life preaching the gospel and founding churches. He never took a dime, was imprisoned on more than one occasion, and in the end was beheaded for refusing to state it was all a lie. Paul's miracles were personally witnessed and attested to in the Acts of the Apostles by Luke and others.

Exactly, There are no supernatural miracle claims regarding the civil war

I think by slog she means long. It isn’t a short book and takes some effort to finish.

@@freshjellomusic5097 she was talking about needing to take Tim Keller breaks to decompress bc of the content, but i mean yeah its a long book and took a long time to read, but its pretty easy to follow, and nt wright's style is about as readable as what anyone could ask for

By "slog" she means the extraordinary detail in his work and how those details connect. I tried to read his book, but it got way way way too far into the weeds (aka slog)

@@jake5811 i thought it was pretty straightforward...it took a long time to read because there are a lot of pages but its just like "here is what greeks thought about resurrection" and "here paul's resurrection theology in each of the letters" etc etc etc through other examples, and an overall argument about how Jesus' resurrection and its accounts are unique and how people couldnt have come up with all of that on their own

@@Greyz174 ---You are more patient than I am. As an ADHD guy I found it very difficult to remain awake as he went into great detail on the Resurrection narrative.

Why does he look old in the shroud? Can you recommend an article or video? Thanks 🙏

Put into Google: "Bruce Gerig Shroud of Turin" for a good introduction. The Shroud was likely created by a burst of intense radiation from God in the tomb, so that may have aged Jesus' hair.

@@user-tb1gf6kn4w That is one of the most amusing comments I have ever read. "Intense radiation from God" - "aged Jesus' hair" !!! LOL 🤣

John Jackson, a physicist who examined the Shroud in 1978, suspects it was created by an intense radiation burst, so call him a comedian, genius.

@@user-tb1gf6kn4w As he was commissioned to work for the "Holy shroud guild" - I would just politely call that a conflict of interests...but I am not polite. The man was talking BS, if he ever attributed anything to do with that shroud as "from God". There are no gods, angels, demons, devils.

jesus is dead and the dead do not and cannot teach. Do you make up your lies as you go along?

@vhawk1951kl You just show your complete ignorance. The body and personality of Jesus is NOT Christ. Christ is eternal spirit and therefore always exists. Only the insane believe they could be bodies.

The Bible doesn’t say it was a snake.

Ok. A talking donkey 🐴 ​@@TulleyAndMe

Faith is simply what we believe. She chose to believe what the evidence said.

You confuse certainty with coming to a decision based upon the evidence; confidence, not certainty. You could never be a juror in a trial nor could you have any courts with your belief system. Proofs only exist in math.

That isn't a far assessment of what happens. She as a historian applied her historian skills to these ancient texts and listened to the arguments and ideas of serious scholars like NT Wright, Baukham and wrestled with them. That doesn't sound like setting aside a rational logic based approach.

@@risenchurchbrisbane If I did the same thing with "The Epic of Gilgamesh" (a text that predates the bible by thousands of years) would you consider that, likewise, a rational approach? A lot of very serious historians have studied Gilgamesh - not a SINGLE one has ever maintained that the events therein are fact - you would have to be deluded to think that. This woman is simply deluded. Jesus never existed and dead people do not come back to life.

⁠@@michaelfourie345 A lot of very serious historians have studied the New Testament (many non-Christian) and the consensus is that Jesus existed. The mythological Jesus idea is fringe and ahistorical.

NT Wrights book on the resurrection of the son of God. At least as far as making the resurrection possible she shares in more detail elsewhere what cumulatively led her to become a Christian.

@@danielholder7979 That's the thing, I've read most of his book, it really isn't anything new. Just a bunch of old rehashed BS that any cookie cutter apologists writes and talks about. So again, what was it that convinced her?

@@jacoblee5796 I’m not saying it has to be convincing to you, I’m saying that’s what convinced her. What part of NT Wrights argument do you find unconvincing though?

@@danielholder7979 And I'm just asking what about it exactly convinced her? It doesn't have any new information in it, it's full of the same old apologetic BS. It's as if she's done ZERO research on this and read ONE apologetic book and become convinced? Because that's the way it's coming off. Which i find hard to believe for a professor.

@@jacoblee5796 ----You are quite an obnoxious person aren't you pal?

@fatalberti I am a Christian theist and I don't buy the standard evangelical evidence that some think are so sufficient. This women is simply ignorant of the issues with these matters. I would question what kind of historian she really is.

TAhere neither is - nor could possibly be " evidence" of the impossible. Hearsay is not repeat *Not* evidence Why?- Because evidence that cannot be tested *cannot* be evidence because evidence that cannot be tested in cross-examination or otherwise is so utterly worthless that it is not evidence, and that is why there is no.....evidence.... whatsover, that jesus rose from the dead. There *could_not* be any such evidence because it is *as* impossible as jesus ate his own head sandwiched between two unicorns-they are*equally_impossible* The so-called resurrection is *utterly **_irrelevant_*_ to christianity as is the god fantasy*Neither has*anything_ whatsoever* to do with the teaching-there is simply *no_ need* for absurd and fantastic lies like the resurrection lie which is *irrelevant* to the impossible namely being a christian which - incidentally , is why *there_are_no*christians just as there are no standing-on-their-own-heads_ians. Christianity has.....nothing..... to..... do..... with *belief* and anyone that suggests otherwise understands_nothing* of Christianity which is now extinct.

Woke means awareness, so go back to sleep as the world continues without you.

@@terrybedtelyon8225 No, woke has come to mean ignorant of science and facts, in a nutshell, crazy.

@@SavedbyGraceAlone1962 It's exactly 100% the opposite: "anti-woke" means refusing to pay attention to reality, whether in terms of society's problems, historical truths, or scientific facts. People who go on and on about "wokeness" don't want their 1950s white Christian dream to be disturbed.

@@SavedbyGraceAlone1962 Where is that definition? Cause I can point to a court case in Florida otherwise.

Do you like to oppress people? What is wrong with being woke?

Can I be like you when I grow up?

Mark is probably a genuine attempt to record the story of Jesus' mission, before all eyewitnesses had died; Matthew is more propagandist, placing heavy emphasis on connections to Jewish scripture to encourage conversion; Luke's main work is Acts, but while researching that continuing history he seems to have found information which disagreed with Matthew, so wrote his own gospel; John, decades later, is massively propagandist, inventing "authentic details" to make the story more vivid.

@@marksnow7569 ---seems like you are "inventing authentic details" at this very moment.

@@jake5811 By "authentic details" I meant things like the whip and the spilling of changers' money added to the Cleansing of the Temple story (which John placed early in the career of Jesus, rather than mere days before the end). Try imagining the money-changers as real people ...

@@marksnow7569 ---Your comment reveals that you either did not LISTEN to this exchange between the two historians, or you did not understand. No wonder you embrace atheism. You are not a student of the game.

@@jake581112:26 _"If we define the Historical Method as drawing- our ability to draw analogies between our own experience of cause and effect in our own life and the way cause and effect works in the past"_ ... use that version of the Historical Method for yourself, and try imagining the money-changers as real people. The cause is a man with an improvised whip tipping your business capital (remember this is just before Passover, one of the busiest times of the year) on the floor. What are his chances of ever setting foot in the Temple again?

The DNA code for humans is complex, but the DNA code for some bacteria is only about 1/20,000th as long

What makes you think that complexity only comes from intelligence?

@@ryana1787 It's the best explanation. Except for those who have been indoctrinated and brainwashed by the corrupt anti semitic woke establishment-owned secular atheist American university systems.

@@ryana1787 ---Life begets life. Can you provide an example of non-living matter producing life?

@@jake5811 everything in your body was made from things that are not living.

There is no evidence that a Nicodemus even existed - he is after all only mentioned in one account, and his character cannot be traced to any reliable source. Furthermore, your argument is the one that I hear all the time - "why would they risk their lives for a lie?" It's very simple. Who says that it had to be a lie? Many people in history have believed in certain ideas with all their heart, but it turned out to be false. Doesn't mean they were lying, it just means that people base their whole lives on false beliefs.

???