Let me summarize this comment section: a bunch of unqualified, non-historians, blinded by their existing bias, laughing at a qualified, professional historian who is explaining how her historical professionalism forced her to challenge her previous bias.
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 is 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?
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.
I have followed the scientific investigations of the Shroud of Turin for many years. For only one reason. So that I could believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Then I had two ‘Wow’ moments! The first was the that the disciples heard Jesus’ teachings, but never really listened. When He was crucified, they seemed to lose faith and they went into hiding. It was like, Jesus was not the King they were expecting. Now, Jesus appeared to over 500 people after he was resurrected, but we never really hear about what those 500 did after. However, the disciples suddenly found their faith again and went out spreading the Good News with such vigour and passion. John was eventually imprisoned on the prison island of Patmos and the rest were martyred for their faith. The ‘Wow’ moment was: Why would they do that for a lie? At least one of them would have cracked and the whole house of cards would have come tumbling down! That means only one thing. Jesus appeared to the disciples out of thin air in a locked and shuttered room! There is no other explanation! The second ‘Wow’ was Saul on the road to Damascus. Jesus, now in Heaven, asked Saul “Why do you persecute me.” Saul, became Paul and became a most devout follower of Jesus! Why did Jesus choose Saul? Jesus could have chosen a Christian. But wait. Had He done so, that person would have simply become a footnote in the Scriptures with barely a mention. No, Jesus chose a tax collecting persecutor of Christians whose life did a complete about face on the road to Damascus. Again, why would a fairly wealthy man who hated Christians turn his life the way he did, suffering imprisonment and eventual beheading, for a lie! He wouldn’t! Both of my ‘Wow’ moments demonstrate to me that Jesus was crucified, resurrected and then ascended to Heaven. The Shroud of Turin is now just an interesting artefact. Something said to me “Read the Scriptures again!” When I did, it was like ‘WOW’
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.
@@Roger-r7s 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. 🙏
@@Roger-r7sThe 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.
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
@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.
Refreshing point of view, uncommon testimony and real personal inner struggle balanced with a search/need for truth that I just haven't heard elsewhere. Lord Jesus let this be the beginning of many like her that turn and follow you.
What is said regarding the conflicting facts in the accounts of the Gospels and how this is true with history in general, is spot on. I spent 35 years in law enforcement and 30 as a criminal investigator. The most unreliable evidence is eye witness testimony. Because every witness brings something different to the table, bias, points of view and impressions. We do this generally with religion, and those who have influenced religion. I have come to believe that it is all true… all of it…just not necessarily how we might think that it is true.
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.
@@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. ?
An expert in her field arrives at her conclusion after decades of study, careful thought and personal struggle. Her critics respond with name-calling. Nice.
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.
She’s so right about marks gospel. I heard Alec McCowan recite it from memory many years ago and I felt it was almost reportage and very immediate in places.
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.
@@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.
So does she believe the graves of Jerusalem opened up and the dead walked about? That Jesus withered a fig tree for not bearing figs when it wasn't the season for figs? That Pilate released a Jewish criminal on the say so of a Jewish mob? That Jesus flew up into space?
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.
Finally an honest intellectual who was willing to really examine all the evidence that cumulatively makes for a very compelling case supportive of the first century apostolic testimony as being factually and historically grounded. However it is often necessary for modern people to recognize that their own presumptions and implicit or explicit biases about the nature of reality can get in the way of being able to understand the history regarding Jesus Christ and the biblical record and it's frame of reference and interpretive construction which is given by those writers of those historical events.
@@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!
She also said about putting ones supernatural biases aside well again what does she think about the supernatural miracles of say Islamor Mormonism? If she dismisses these on what grounds does she do so?
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
Miracles happen within most beleif systems - shamanism, satanism - its not the thing that can settle an arguement. In the OT /Torah, (pagan) Pharoah's prophet duplicates every miracle produced by Moses - eg the water is turned blood red, sticks each hold become snakes Satan - the fallen angel - has powers equal to God, except he is/was defeated on the cross, death has lost its sting; sin no longer chains every man; the fall is reversed, he has eternal life with God.... if he accepts Christ's gift of penal substition/one sacrifice for all
One thing that I thought more people, more Christians, would latch on to was her final statement about how many ideas she had to admit she had as a secular person to make a leap of faith on.
The NT contains the only account for the resurrection of Jesus. Although anonymous, the church has attributed the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Gospels were written in the third person. While these points are not a deal breaker, the Gospels do not contain any first hand eyewitness accounts for the resurrection. A historian should not accept such weak evidence unless they have the epistemic standard of Low Bar Bill.
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.
@@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
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.
Recommended reading. "The text by Bailey and Vander Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook (1992) provides definitions of over thirty literary forms, including examples of their use in the New Testament and comments regarding the value of genre recognition for interpretation. Various descriptions and labels include historical literature, historical biography, popular biography, Graeco-Roman biography, a folk book, tradition in a Middle Eastern peasant culture, cultic legend, document of faith, drama or mythography, letter writing (e.g., Paul’s epistles), memoirs, Midrashic, narrative literature, novels, theological literature, and unique genre. In order to answer what genre these texts were written, it is necessary to determine the purpose of their respective authors. At the same time, it is the position of this text that the Gospels are not a biography, and they are not written to record history in a modern sense. " Alter, Michael J.. The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (pp. 59-60). Xlibris US. Kindle Edition.
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.
...so basically she agreed to suspend disbelief. She took the rational logic based approach and shelved it. She choose to "have faith". She's right about having the open mind approach. That's why I'm here after all. Btw, agnostic is the ONLY rational approach. It's the only one that demands proof.
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.
She still expressed that it is still a leap of faith. It is interesting when she said that she an all or nothing type of person where she needs to decide after going through her own investigation. I wonder what motivates her to decide firmly even she have not experienced the mystical experience.
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).
@9:00 Somehow she is explaining what DID happen - but she is not realizing/accepting that it did? The followers did run away, or disperse. He died a lonely death, historically speaking. The embrace of Christ she is talking about happened 30-100 years later in the gospels.
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.
@jake5811 So what is your historical significant evidence that make you think that Jesus resurrection most likely happened? And have you looked into the details of Romuluses resurrection? Because are almost identical?
Historical facts outside of the Bible show that all 12 Disciples including Paul were martyred. Not a single disciple retract his 'lie' to save his own neck. Would you die for something you know is not true? I find this even more remarkable than the resurrection itself.
Ppl die for what they believe is true or they see their death as having a greater purpose or may result in a reward in the afterlife. Many muslims martyr theirselves for their beliefs, does that mean what they believe is true?
@@isaiah5399 I never said it did. I am responding that ppl die for what they believe is true. You have to prove that they died for what they knew was true
@@sohkaryong5605 Yes he died of old age but he was horrifically tortured. He was boiled in oil for refusing to worship pagan gods under the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian.
11:08 I concur. At the end of the day, it's one's philosophical beliefs (about how to make sense of anything) that drive the view on history (and everything else). I once watched a debate between Bart Ehrman and Michael Licona on the subject of resurrection. Right at the beginning, Bart said, "Miracles are outside the purview of history (or historical studies)." (I don't remember the exact wording, but it's something along that line.) Now that I think of it, it was rather problematic that Bart made that big of a philosophical claim right there. I also watched an interview where Michael Licona was talking about his debate with Bart Erhman (about the same subject, but probably not the same debate). From what I remember, Michael said during the interview, "God exists, so of course resurrection is possible." (Again, I don't remember the exact wording, but it's something along that line.) I also found it problematic that Michael made that big of a philosophical claim right there. Now, I don't doubt that both have thought long and hard about their philosophical positions. I just don't like how they stated their philosophical positions, which are utterly important, as passing references, in their respective occasions. 12:29 That is philosophy, right there, talking about definition, cause and effect. Ps: Some people say that such a definition of historical method presumes uniformity of human experience.
It is understandable how people seeing the same event could perceive it differently to some degree but that is not what we have in the New Testament, these are researched accounts, not eyewitness accounts. We can see that Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark's gospel and we can see them also take liberties in altering the story and adding to the story that Mark presents. We can tell that Mark must have been a Gentile because of the mistakes he makes that no Jew of that time would make. I don't doubt anyone can change their minds, where a historian is a bit like a detective in collecting the clues and attempting a best guess as to what the clues add up to. The question from this video should be how good of a detective is this particular historian and how does her case stack up to others in the field? I would at least agree that Christianity is a bit of a mystery and depending on how you look at it, could be convinced into or out of Christianity and sometimes both.
There is a God. The genetic DNA code is too complex to originate without a super intelligence. A God who can create would naturally reveal himself. There is no more effective way than to become incarnate as a human being. A God who can create our reality can then also raise Jesus from the dead into a new dimension of life which transcends but also intersects our space time. It all makes sense!
@@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.
the 19th century trend to "diminish" the resurrection story to an allegory does seem to have taken the power from Christianity. However, an allegory is a story that refers to something real. So, King Arthur or Lancelot are characters in a story that promotes values of piety, courage and loyalty. Likewise with the resurrection story. But what is the real thing the allegory of the resurrection refers to? Believers today say Christ is risen and is alive within them. This belief or even experience is a state of mind. So, perhaps that is what the resurrection is. Christ exists in the mind. The idea of Jesus is alive and has been alive in the minds of Christians for 2000 years.
The key point was for the professor to recognise the extent to which we have been channelled into the circular belief that religion is bunk because miracles don't happen and miracles don't happen because religion is bunk. When one faces the evidence, there is plausible account for the origin of the Christian church than the one provided by Luke in his gospel and its sequel, The Acts of the Apostles.
Highfield, you base a comment on " we have been channelled into the circular belief that religion is bunk because miracles don't happen and miracles don't happen because religion is bunk." The only problem with this is that there is no circular argument because no one is ever saying that religion is bunk because miracles don't happen. By "religion" I assume you mean Theist religions based around God. People think they are bunk because there is no robust evidence for a god that stands up to scrutiny. All evidence submitted by theists is easily debunked. Whether miracles happen or not has nothing to do with the existence of a religion. There might well be other explanations. Miracles are said to have happened in many philosophical non theist religions as well, not just religions based around gods.
@@mchooksis Thank you for responding. You say that all evidence submitted by theists is easily debunked. If Luke's account of the origin of the Christian church is reliable then Jesus is a man who performed many extraordinary miracles, presented sagacious teaching and lived a virtuous life. The testimony of such a man about the existence of God then has to be counted as robust evidence. If Luke's account of the origin of the Christian church is not reliable then I would have expected that after some 300 years of hostile scholarship, someone by now would have been able to write a plausible account of the church's origin that forensically debunks Luke's account. Any such a book would be prominent on the shelves of every public library, but I am not aware of it. That seems reasonably robust to me, and I think this is the very point that Prof Worthen is making. Also, consider the implications if God were to reveal Himself with the kind of certainty that scientific enquiry delivers. It would be similar to driving whilst seeing a police car behind you - as then you don't keep to the speed limit because you are a virtuous or responsible person but because you see that you have no choice. Just as there is no virtue in being diligent when you know that the boss is watching. So, such a revelation of God would have drastic implications for our capacity for virtue, to the extent that our ability to exist as moral beings would be in question as well as our human freedom. It strikes me as odd that (if belief in theism were so easily debunked) Francis Collins, leader of the human genome project and Science Advisor to each US President since 2009 would not have moved from atheism to Christian faith at 25 (and remained a Christian) when a question from patient ("What do you believe?") prompted him to make intelligent enquiries about belief. Similarly for Ian Hutchinson, Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT who came from a non-Christian home and found faith at university after some Christian friends prompted him to make enquiry. He wrote an interesting book, "The Monopolization of Knowledge" where he challenges the popular assumption that science is the only way of knowing anything. Another challenge is John Wise, a US professor of philosophy who became an atheist after losing faith at a theological college, spent 25 years as an articulate atheist and then returned to a joyous faith, in part because of where his philosophical studies of Socrates, Kant and Satre brought him. We each have our own journey and benefit from the comments and critiques of others, but I don't recognize "easily debunked" as persuasive. I haven't found it necessary (nor ever been asked) to abandon critical intellectual enquiry in order to embrace that faith that has been the spiritual foundation of Western society for millennia and the inspiration for many of its greatest achievements, including by many Christian scientists. Whilst not incompatible with reason, I don't think the faith should be lightly dismissed just because it doesn't regard bare reason as its sole inspiration. There does not seem to be any other accepted canon of literature that is available as an attractive substitute for the moral guidance Scripture gives and it seems morally reckless to abandon society to ethical chaos on the grounds supposed logic. Either we admit that 10,000 years of civilization has really taught us nothing morally useful or (pending a proven alternative) we treat more seriously the tested guide that we already have. I would be interested and grateful for your reply.
@@mchooksisthe lives of millions of people who have been totally changed by following Jesus the Christ is more evidence than anyone needs. The very creation is shouting glory to God. The historical evidence is indisputable. What do you need to be convinced to gain life that is life indeed.?
@Highfield-qg4iu No scholar buys this circular conception red herring you are describing - that is NOT the issue. I encourage a little effort to listen to a real history such as Bart Ehrman as to what the real issue is.
@wtillett243 I am not disputing that millions of lives have been changed by "finding Jesus". But you have a very strange concept of what evidence is if you think that this is robust evidence that Jesus was the sun of god. Facts are not proved true simply by the weight of numbers that believe them. Millions also have been changed by the teachings of the Buddha, or the story's of the Hindu gods, Chairman Mao's red book. Not to mention the millions of moslems who believe Jesus was a prophet, not the son of God. As for the bible being shown to be true. Because historical names or places or even events may or may not be proved to be correct from historical records, these do not constitute robust evidence that God is real. You would not say that Osiris must be true because we have evidence for the Pharoes, pyramids, and ancient texts that depict the Egyption afterlife. Why do you not believe in the god Osiris? The characters and places on the ancient Egyptian records are known to be true. This is the same evidence you are presenting for your God. A relatively young god by the way. He did not appear in the mind of man or in any writings for a couple of thousand years AFTER the ancient Egyption gods. You are presenting evidence for one thing as poor for the evidence of another thing. That is not how evidence works. When it comes to God. There is not a shred of evidence that he exists. The creation story is so full holes as is the flood story.
@@georgewagner7787 I assure you that if she was not predisposed to belief, no academic study of the issue would make her a believer. Apologetics are shockingly bad.
@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.
The biggest error most scholars - even the critical ones- make about Jesus and his followers: they grant without question sincerity. Ask yourself, "What do faith healers throughout history and today have in common?" They are running a con. They are a cult of personality and their religion affords them a life they would not otherwise enjoy. If someone is raising the dead today, we all know it's a scam, and the past was no different. Here's another 2 big ones against the resurrection: First, why did Jesus only appear to his followers? Why not also appear to the Sanhedrin? Why not appear in Rome? Or the Temple? Secondly, the world obviously didn't end and the dead rise as Jesus and Paul predicted (I don't think Jesus' and Paul's teachings are the same on this, but nevertheless what they taught didn't occur).
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?
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.
Well there is a bit of a difference between accounts of wars that we know have happened vs miraculous events that need one heck of a lot more evidence.
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?
What I think both speakers have been able to achieve from all they have said is that the narratives in the gospels do not qualify to be of divine origin but rather narratives of some people who claimed to have had a special experience. Experience they narrated from different lenses.
for those of us who are investigating Jesus/trying to come to faith in Christ, this is amazing. almost groundbreaking, for an expert in the field to talk abt the NT like this. i loved listening to this!!!!
She is very well informed in the specific matters she addresses, and has clearly understood core concepts and arguments made in significant historical detail.
It also goes the other way. Dr. Bart Ehrman is a new testament scholar and historian, was an evangelical Chhristian and now is an agnostic because he found problems with christian theology particularly with the problem of evil. Is this not also groundbreaking, that a former evangelical new testament scholar has deconverted?
@@Augie-r9q Erhman is a well known skeptic. Are his views compelling to Molly (a friend of his) or, more importantly, to Wright, Hays, Bauckman, or many others of top rank in this field? No. There is no shortcut to doing the hard work of actual research, which Molly has done, if you want to clearly understand the evidence and arguments alluded to here. That she and Bart draw different conclusions, in and of itself, tells one little about the actual body of scholarship under discussion.
I think her statement about how radical the notion of the Messiah, who was thought to be a political leader, akin to the Dali Lama, was then killed. It took a while for the people there to „make sense of it.“. We forget, or never knew, how problematic it was for those who were there.
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.
Of Course. Plus there is this: Modern cosmology is presently handicapped by a pre-occupation with “string theory”. A similar gating happened during the early days of modern physics when Galilleo was persecutes by the Church because they’re clung to “classical” physics. Thus they were loath to examine the much more rigorous science of Newton, One result was a hundred years later Greek philosophy was dismissed by Hume. His now outdated anti- supernaturalism has now become orthodoxy.
@@theunknownatheist3815 it's a saying I like from a Tom MacDonald shirt. You say it when you like someone. It may come from rap culture or memes maybe.
I am a Christian theist and I don't buy the standard evangelical evidence or this woman's reflections - which some think are so sufficient. This women is simply ignorant of the issues with these matters - and sad to say seems like a pretty shallow person. I would question what kind of historian she really is. As to whether God genuinely worked in her life to bring a connection - that is a completely different issue.
What do you think of Bart Ehrman's work especially Forged. Also the work of Israeli archaologist Israel Finkelstein The Bible Unearthed arguning on the exodus and conquest. Even Peter Enns did a good summery on the conquest accounts. Digging for Answers Biblical Archaeologists are about as certain as you can be about these things that the conquest of Canaan as the Bible describes did not happen: no mass invasion from the outside by an Israelite army and no extermination of Canaanites as God commanded One thing archaeologists can tell us is whether or not a city was violently destroyed by outside invaders and whether a new group of people took up residence, Battle and destructions of cities leave archaeological footprints - things like soot(if the town was burned0, weapons, smashed pottery, and human bones. Mass migrations of people groups as the Bible describes with Israel entering Canaan would cause some cultural upheaval and leave some sort of remains for archaeologists to dig up and write long books about to help them get tenure. Remember those thirty-one Canaanite towns listed in the Book of Joshua (plus other towns on either side of the Jordan River)? Sixteen towns were destroyed according to the stories in the books of Numbers, Joshua and Judges. Of those sixteen, two or three maybe four cities show signs of violent destruction at or around the time when Joshua and his army would have been ploughing through Canaan(thirteenth centuryBCE about 200 years before the time of King David)). That’s it The towns on the other side of the Jordan River, in Moab, don’t look like they were even occupied at the time. We also read in the Bible that twelve towns were taken over without a fight. But of those twelve only seven were even occupied at the time , according to archaeological findings. And of those same twelve towns that the Bible says weren’t destroyed, three actually do show signs of destruction. In other words, archaeology and the biblical story don’t line up well at all. Jericho, the first of the towns to be razed in the Book of Joshua, is the most famous example. Not only was Jericho minimally inhabited at the best of time, but it had no massive protective walls, which means the biblical story of the “walls of Jericho” tumbling down - at least that’s what a hundred years of digging there has shown us. What most everyone is certain about however, is that the Bible;’s version of events is not what happened. And that puts the question “How could God have all those Canaanites put to death?” in a different light, indeed. He didn’t. From Peter Enns The Bible Tells Me So, pp. 58-60 HarperOne , 2015.
@@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.
@@TearDownThisWall 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.
Jesus Christ wasn't a self-proclaimed Messiah. He was prophesied according to the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, but also was authenticated by John the Baptist (who was last of the Old Testament prophets).
@@nmbr1son64 no, ppl dont decide where theyre born. Whats the relevance of that? Ppl can still raise a child to believe they are a messiah based on a prophecy
@@CMVMic the ONLY reason to raise a child to believe He is Messiah is by Divine directive. Angels appeared to announce Jesus' birth to both Mary and Joseph. The angel even told them what name to give the Child.
Yes. "Inerrant" is a HUMAN fabricated falsehood about such a rich mishmash of texts, authors, experiences, personalities, and cultural / historical contexts. Healthy to let it go, and note that God is neither alarmed nor endangered by doing so.
No it isn't; Inerrant" is simply a cognate of infallible. No university for you titch, but that was ever so was it not? Be advised and mind well, always double check, because if you don't another will.Oh hubris ever there to smack the swaggering and silly.
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.
The gospels are dated late in the 1st Century-with some placing John very early in the 2nd-is because the gospel that is determined to have been written first-Mark-has a prophecy by Jesus regarding the Temple, that it would be destroyed. The Romans destroyed it in 70 AD, and so from thence-in secular academia-the gosoel must have been written in 70 AD, at the earliest, because of that, so Matthew and Luke must have come after, and John even later. Because, it is premised, Jesus cannot possibly have predicted the destruction of the Temple.
“Mystical experience “ does not indicate truth. Mystical experience is emotional, emotions change, minute by minute. Only the Holy Spirit makes it possible for you to believe, He is truth, He doesn’t lie. Forget “mystical experience.”
I have an axiom- for every “expert”, there is an equal & opposite “expert”. So, I’ll see whoever this chick is, and raise you a Bart Ehrman. But of course, you’ll have an issue with that. 🙄
I would note that a number of Protestant and Catholic critics of Tom Wright's book on the resurrection of Christ, and the promise of resurrection for mankind, characterized his conclusions as being "Mormon" (a nickame for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Wright does not quote or cite ANY CJCLDS source in his book, or discuss their doctrines at all, or contrast them with other denominations' doctrines. But the CJCLDS does teach that the resurrection will eventually encompass EVERY human who has ever lived, and that resurrection consists of an immortal spirit, which continues to live after death in a realm of spirits, returning to inhabit an immortal, physical body that will never die. That is also the teaching that Wright finds in the New Testament, contrary to the ideas of many modern Christian denominations who don't believe in a physical body continuing in eternity. In First Things journal, in response to the critics who indicted him for endorsing what they thought is an heretical belief about a physical immortal resurrection, Wright said "The Mormons read the Bible more carefully than many other people.". The CJCLDS point out that Christ has a resurrected, immortal physical body, and he is the divine Son of God the Father. They therefore argue that their belief that God the Father also has an immortal, physical body, LIKE THE SON, is also consistent with the Bible. And they teach that all human beings are embodied spirits who are the children of the Father, who are intended to become like Him and his Only Begotten Son, both embodied and immortal for eternity. The LDS explain the reason for the physical resurrection, which other churches cannot.
It always makes me laugh when people put so much emphasis on their own religion, or the religion they have been surrounded by most of their lives, while simultaneously forgetting/ignoring that various cultures existed, flourished, and had a variety of superstitious stories, beliefs, and claims. Why is it that they never consider the superstitious and magical claims of other religions or cultures as seriously as their own? Why do they not believe in oracles and djinn, or the "supernatural" claims and gods of other pantheons who were genuinely believed to have effects on the real world? Why are these discredited as if people didn't base their lives around their apparent truthfulness? Why should anyone take the fabled resurrection of Jesus seriously, but not take the stories of the Iliad, Heracles, the Assyrians, the Chinese, or the Vedas seriously? Would she change her mind about the Norse stories such as how Thor killed all the frost giants? Was the Earth made from the body and blood of Ymir? Let it also be known that being a historian does not exclude you from superstitious thinking. For example, in at least one of his letters, the historian Pliny the Elder, wrote about how he believed in ghosts because he HEARD A STORY from someone. That's it. Not because he had evidence, but because he heard a story. That's something to keep in mind when it comes to the gospels, Christianity, and religion in general. I don't discredit her work as a historian of religion and it's history in North America, however i do find it interesting that she's not saying this as an Ancient Near East scholar, but as a North American scholar.
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.
You clearly are too unaware of parapsychology, spiritualism, OBEs, the double-slit experiment, and the current scientific consensus that the nature and the effects of our own consciousness are quite poorly understood. Having a miracle worker heal himself and get out of tomb doesn't sound too odd.
The gospels were written by UNKNOWN authors who were NOT eyewitnesses. The names Mark, John and Luke were added later. Anyway, the resurrection is of course utter nonsense. And science and especially evolution have already debunked the crux of christianity and the crux of all the other religions I know of ages ago!
Evolution is an unproven theory. Even Darwin admitted as much. If you think there has been enough time on this earth for humans to evolve from sludge you are a fantasist.
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.
@@MarcWilliams-v9w 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.
Such flawed logic so Huckleberry Finn is real because of the writing style They don’t mention the theological differences between the gospels?Paul was in a sect that believed in resurrection. We have examples of cults doubling down when their leader dies sorry it’s totally fine to be Christian you just have good evidence. They should read Richard c Miller then compare both books. Missing bodies was a trope in Greek world. The idea that the the gospel writers had no idea about the culture is insulting them.
A good general makes sure that all of his troops going into battle gets a proper briefing to make sure that they are on the same page. Did Jesus do that. He didn’t even write anything down. Did he not know that the memory of uneducated man is not dependable. Furthermore, a three year ministry is woefully inadequate to do anything substantial. Another thing, we are told that, after he arose, Jesus came through a wall to get to the disciples who were a hidden huddled mass of mess terrified of Rome, frightened of the Jews and apprehensive and guilt ridden about having lied to and then deserted Jesus. Yet, when Jesus came in, not one disciple attempted to run, apologize, repented or asked Jesus what happened to him. Not one. Psychology played no part in the stories in the gospels. Every soul was on robotic mode. I suppose.
She is *Lying* that pseudo interview is a put-up-job, a con trick-its the old I-have-changed-my-mind con trick -it is as old as the hills.People will happily lie their heads off in what they deceive themselves into thinking is a good cause.
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.
@@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?
It's just a threat to unbelievers of many threats. Believe in Jesus. If not, he'll come back and deal with you. The real world doesn't work that way. Only in fiction. Many feel threatened as many threatened that ghosts will harm them.
Let me summarize this comment section: a bunch of unqualified, non-historians, blinded by their existing bias, laughing at a qualified, professional historian who is explaining how her historical professionalism forced her to challenge her previous bias.
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 is 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.)
This hard working, clearly inspired woman sure is getting a lot of hate from people with 0 expertise
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?
I have followed the scientific investigations of the Shroud of Turin for many years. For only one reason. So that I could believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Then I had two ‘Wow’ moments! The first was the that the disciples heard Jesus’ teachings, but never really listened. When He was crucified, they seemed to lose faith and they went into hiding. It was like, Jesus was not the King they were expecting. Now, Jesus appeared to over 500 people after he was resurrected, but we never really hear about what those 500 did after. However, the disciples suddenly found their faith again and went out spreading the Good News with such vigour and passion. John was eventually imprisoned on the prison island of Patmos and the rest were martyred for their faith. The ‘Wow’ moment was: Why would they do that for a lie? At least one of them would have cracked and the whole house of cards would have come tumbling down! That means only one thing. Jesus appeared to the disciples out of thin air in a locked and shuttered room! There is no other explanation!
The second ‘Wow’ was Saul on the road to Damascus. Jesus, now in Heaven, asked Saul “Why do you persecute me.” Saul, became Paul and became a most devout follower of Jesus! Why did Jesus choose Saul? Jesus could have chosen a Christian. But wait. Had He done so, that person would have simply become a footnote in the Scriptures with barely a mention. No, Jesus chose a tax collecting persecutor of Christians whose life did a complete about face on the road to Damascus. Again, why would a fairly wealthy man who hated Christians turn his life the way he did, suffering imprisonment and eventual beheading, for a lie! He wouldn’t! Both of my ‘Wow’ moments demonstrate to me that Jesus was crucified, resurrected and then ascended to Heaven.
The Shroud of Turin is now just an interesting artefact. Something said to me “Read the Scriptures again!” When I did, it was like ‘WOW’
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.
@@Roger-r7s 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. 🙏
@@Roger-r7sThe 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
Fascinating. She is so expressive.
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.
Thank you for this. Subscribed.
Refreshing point of view, uncommon testimony and real personal inner struggle balanced with a search/need for truth that I just haven't heard elsewhere. Lord Jesus let this be the beginning of many like her that turn and follow you.
What is said regarding the conflicting facts in the accounts of the Gospels and how this is true with history in general, is spot on. I spent 35 years in law enforcement and 30 as a criminal investigator. The most unreliable evidence is eye witness testimony. Because every witness brings something different to the table, bias, points of view and impressions. We do this generally with religion, and those who have influenced religion. I have come to believe that it is all true… all of it…just not necessarily how we might think that it is true.
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. ?
Professor Worthen combines ethos, pathos and logos to present her case. Kudos to her; this is brilliant. Subscribed.
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.
An expert in her field arrives at her conclusion after decades of study, careful thought and personal struggle. Her critics respond with name-calling. Nice.
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.
Molly, I love to hear you speak!
Your use of words and God-given thought processes are amazing.
Wow. Thank you. That was brilliant.
She’s so right about marks gospel. I heard Alec McCowan recite it from memory many years ago and I felt it was almost reportage and very immediate in places.
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.
So does she believe the graves of Jerusalem opened up and the dead walked about? That Jesus withered a fig tree for not bearing figs when it wasn't the season for figs? That Pilate released a Jewish criminal on the say so of a Jewish mob? That Jesus flew up into space?
A pity to be trapped in your mind
Walking dead? Zombies? lol did they die again later.
Thank GOD for these 2 intelligent and honest women.
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.
Finally an honest intellectual who was willing to really examine all the evidence that cumulatively makes for a very compelling case supportive of the first century apostolic testimony as being factually and historically grounded. However it is often necessary for modern people to recognize that their own presumptions and implicit or explicit biases about the nature of reality can get in the way of being able to understand the history regarding Jesus Christ and the biblical record and it's frame of reference and interpretive construction which is given by those writers of those historical events.
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!
What is the first inspiring book on the resurrection that she mentions at the start?
N.T.Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God. As she said, it's very thorough but not always an easy read.
She also said about putting ones supernatural biases aside well again what does she think about the supernatural miracles of say Islamor Mormonism? If she dismisses these on what grounds does she do so?
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
Miracles happen within most beleif systems - shamanism, satanism - its not the thing that can settle an arguement. In the OT /Torah, (pagan) Pharoah's prophet duplicates every miracle produced by Moses - eg the water is turned blood red, sticks each hold become snakes
Satan - the fallen angel - has powers equal to God, except he is/was defeated on the cross, death has lost its sting;
sin no longer chains every man; the fall is reversed, he has eternal life with God.... if he accepts Christ's gift of penal substition/one sacrifice for all
One thing that I thought more people, more Christians, would latch on to was her final statement about how many ideas she had to admit she had as a secular person to make a leap of faith on.
The NT contains the only account for the resurrection of Jesus. Although anonymous, the church has attributed the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The Gospels were written in the third person. While these points are not a deal breaker, the Gospels do not contain any first hand eyewitness accounts for the resurrection. A historian should not accept such weak evidence unless they have the epistemic standard of Low Bar Bill.
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.
frustrating that can't understand the name of the book she references at the beginning ------any help?
It's N.T Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God
@@mbb-- thanks, really appreciate it
Okay, now I really want to get that book by NT Wright and “slog” through it with the one by Tim Keller by my side - as an aperitif maybe?
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
I bought it and boy it is a slog. I’m beginning to understand the mind of a historian.
What's the name of the author of that book she mentioned at the beginning? (The one she called "a slog") I'd didn't quite understand 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 :)
There were quite a lot of resurrections mentioned in the Bible? There are even a couple in thew Old Testament.
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.
Seek and you shall find; open and it will be opened to you. The Truth will set you free, indeed❤❤❤
I would love to see both of you on Joe Rogan's Podcast. Thank you! That was awesome!
Recommended reading. "The text by Bailey and Vander Broek, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook (1992) provides definitions of over thirty literary forms, including examples of their use in the New Testament and comments regarding the value of genre recognition for interpretation. Various descriptions and labels include historical literature, historical biography, popular biography, Graeco-Roman biography, a folk book, tradition in a Middle Eastern peasant culture, cultic legend, document of faith, drama or mythography, letter writing (e.g., Paul’s epistles), memoirs, Midrashic, narrative literature, novels, theological literature, and unique genre. In order to answer what genre these texts were written, it is necessary to determine the purpose of their respective authors. At the same time, it is the position of this text that the Gospels are not a biography, and they are not written to record history in a modern sense. "
Alter, Michael J.. The Resurrection: a Critical Inquiry (pp. 59-60). Xlibris US. Kindle Edition.
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.
...so basically she agreed to suspend disbelief.
She took the rational logic based approach and shelved it.
She choose to "have faith".
She's right about having the open mind approach. That's why I'm here after all.
Btw, agnostic is the ONLY rational approach. It's the only one that demands proof.
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.
She still expressed that it is still a leap of faith. It is interesting when she said that she an all or nothing type of person where she needs to decide after going through her own investigation. I wonder what motivates her to decide firmly even she have not experienced the mystical experience.
Exactly It's still a leap to believe in the supernatural
As a believer for many years I find this uncommon narrative very intriguing.
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. 🙄
Thanky you, Molly. Very thorough and enlightening!
Amazingly honest and eloquent statement!
He is risen!
Great discussion.
@9:00 Somehow she is explaining what DID happen - but she is not realizing/accepting that it did? The followers did run away, or disperse. He died a lonely death, historically speaking. The embrace of Christ she is talking about happened 30-100 years later in the gospels.
She should be teaching in university. Not the characters that are in our schools today. God bless her. ❤😂🇨🇦
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.
Which book, exactly, is she referring to?
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...
great video. she has explored the intellectual side, she should chase the experiential side of Christianity and she will get it
@jake5811 So what is your historical significant evidence that make you think that Jesus resurrection most likely happened? And have you looked into the details of Romuluses resurrection? Because are almost identical?
Belief in Romulus never changed anyone's life.
@@georgewagner7787 That's not the point.
How many were martyred for their belief in Romulus
@@rebeccawhite3221 martyredom is no indication of the truth of their beliefs.
Almost?
Historical facts outside of the Bible show that all 12 Disciples including Paul were martyred. Not a single disciple retract his 'lie' to save his own neck. Would you die for something you know is not true? I find this even more remarkable than the resurrection itself.
Ppl die for what they believe is true or they see their death as having a greater purpose or may result in a reward in the afterlife. Many muslims martyr theirselves for their beliefs, does that mean what they believe is true?
@@CMVMic Did I mention 'believes'. My comment has nothing to do with believes.
@@isaiah5399 I never said it did. I am responding that ppl die for what they believe is true. You have to prove that they died for what they knew was true
Apostle john died of old age.
@@sohkaryong5605 Yes he died of old age but he was horrifically tortured. He was boiled in oil for refusing to worship pagan gods under the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian.
11:08 I concur. At the end of the day, it's one's philosophical beliefs (about how to make sense of anything) that drive the view on history (and everything else).
I once watched a debate between Bart Ehrman and Michael Licona on the subject of resurrection. Right at the beginning, Bart said, "Miracles are outside the purview of history (or historical studies)." (I don't remember the exact wording, but it's something along that line.) Now that I think of it, it was rather problematic that Bart made that big of a philosophical claim right there.
I also watched an interview where Michael Licona was talking about his debate with Bart Erhman (about the same subject, but probably not the same debate). From what I remember, Michael said during the interview, "God exists, so of course resurrection is possible." (Again, I don't remember the exact wording, but it's something along that line.) I also found it problematic that Michael made that big of a philosophical claim right there.
Now, I don't doubt that both have thought long and hard about their philosophical positions. I just don't like how they stated their philosophical positions, which are utterly important, as passing references, in their respective occasions.
12:29 That is philosophy, right there, talking about definition, cause and effect. Ps: Some people say that such a definition of historical method presumes uniformity of human experience.
Encouraging, although the professor seems a little driven to intellectualize her way to spiritual illumination.
That’s on account of all the schoolin’……she’ll have her moment 🙌🙏
Educated people tend to do that.
It is understandable how people seeing the same event could perceive it differently to some degree but that is not what we have in the New Testament, these are researched accounts, not eyewitness accounts. We can see that Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark's gospel and we can see them also take liberties in altering the story and adding to the story that Mark presents. We can tell that Mark must have been a Gentile because of the mistakes he makes that no Jew of that time would make. I don't doubt anyone can change their minds, where a historian is a bit like a detective in collecting the clues and attempting a best guess as to what the clues add up to. The question from this video should be how good of a detective is this particular historian and how does her case stack up to others in the field? I would at least agree that Christianity is a bit of a mystery and depending on how you look at it, could be convinced into or out of Christianity and sometimes both.
There is a God. The genetic DNA code is too complex to originate without a super intelligence. A God who can create would naturally reveal himself. There is no more effective way than to become incarnate as a human being. A God who can create our reality can then also raise Jesus from the dead into a new dimension of life which transcends but also intersects our space time. It all makes sense!
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.
the 19th century trend to "diminish" the resurrection story to an allegory does seem to have taken the power from Christianity.
However, an allegory is a story that refers to something real. So, King Arthur or Lancelot are characters in a story that promotes values of piety, courage and loyalty. Likewise with the resurrection story.
But what is the real thing the allegory of the resurrection refers to?
Believers today say Christ is risen and is alive within them. This belief or even experience is a state of mind. So, perhaps that is what the resurrection is. Christ exists in the mind. The idea of Jesus is alive and has been alive in the minds of Christians for 2000 years.
The key point was for the professor to recognise the extent to which we have been channelled into the circular belief that religion is bunk because miracles don't happen and miracles don't happen because religion is bunk. When one faces the evidence, there is plausible account for the origin of the Christian church than the one provided by Luke in his gospel and its sequel, The Acts of the Apostles.
Highfield, you base a comment on " we have been channelled into the circular belief that religion is bunk because miracles don't happen and miracles don't happen because religion is bunk."
The only problem with this is that there is no circular argument because no one is ever saying that religion is bunk because miracles don't happen. By "religion" I assume you mean Theist religions based around God. People think they are bunk because there is no robust evidence for a god that stands up to scrutiny. All evidence submitted by theists is easily debunked. Whether miracles happen or not has nothing to do with the existence of a religion. There might well be other explanations. Miracles are said to have happened in many philosophical non theist religions as well, not just religions based around gods.
@@mchooksis Thank you for responding. You say that all evidence submitted by theists is easily debunked. If Luke's account of the origin of the Christian church is reliable then Jesus is a man who performed many extraordinary miracles, presented sagacious teaching and lived a virtuous life. The testimony of such a man about the existence of God then has to be counted as robust evidence. If Luke's account of the origin of the Christian church is not reliable then I would have expected that after some 300 years of hostile scholarship, someone by now would have been able to write a plausible account of the church's origin that forensically debunks Luke's account. Any such a book would be prominent on the shelves of every public library, but I am not aware of it. That seems reasonably robust to me, and I think this is the very point that Prof Worthen is making. Also, consider the implications if God were to reveal Himself with the kind of certainty that scientific enquiry delivers. It would be similar to driving whilst seeing a police car behind you - as then you don't keep to the speed limit because you are a virtuous or responsible person but because you see that you have no choice. Just as there is no virtue in being diligent when you know that the boss is watching. So, such a revelation of God would have drastic implications for our capacity for virtue, to the extent that our ability to exist as moral beings would be in question as well as our human freedom. It strikes me as odd that (if belief in theism were so easily debunked) Francis Collins, leader of the human genome project and Science Advisor to each US President since 2009 would not have moved from atheism to Christian faith at 25 (and remained a Christian) when a question from patient ("What do you believe?") prompted him to make intelligent enquiries about belief. Similarly for Ian Hutchinson, Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT who came from a non-Christian home and found faith at university after some Christian friends prompted him to make enquiry. He wrote an interesting book, "The Monopolization of Knowledge" where he challenges the popular assumption that science is the only way of knowing anything. Another challenge is John Wise, a US professor of philosophy who became an atheist after losing faith at a theological college, spent 25 years as an articulate atheist and then returned to a joyous faith, in part because of where his philosophical studies of Socrates, Kant and Satre brought him. We each have our own journey and benefit from the comments and critiques of others, but I don't recognize "easily debunked" as persuasive. I haven't found it necessary (nor ever been asked) to abandon critical intellectual enquiry in order to embrace that faith that has been the spiritual foundation of Western society for millennia and the inspiration for many of its greatest achievements, including by many Christian scientists. Whilst not incompatible with reason, I don't think the faith should be lightly dismissed just because it doesn't regard bare reason as its sole inspiration. There does not seem to be any other accepted canon of literature that is available as an attractive substitute for the moral guidance Scripture gives and it seems morally reckless to abandon society to ethical chaos on the grounds supposed logic. Either we admit that 10,000 years of civilization has really taught us nothing morally useful or (pending a proven alternative) we treat more seriously the tested guide that we already have. I would be interested and grateful for your reply.
@@mchooksisthe lives of millions of people who have been totally changed by following Jesus the Christ is more evidence than anyone needs. The very creation is shouting glory to God. The historical evidence is indisputable. What do you need to be convinced to gain life that is life indeed.?
@Highfield-qg4iu
No scholar buys this circular conception red herring you are describing - that is NOT the issue.
I encourage a little effort to listen to a real history such as Bart Ehrman as to what the real issue is.
@wtillett243 I am not disputing that millions of lives have been changed by "finding Jesus". But you have a very strange concept of what evidence is if you think that this is robust evidence that Jesus was the sun of god. Facts are not proved true simply by the weight of numbers that believe them. Millions also have been changed by the teachings of the Buddha, or the story's of the Hindu gods, Chairman Mao's red book. Not to mention the millions of moslems who believe Jesus was a prophet, not the son of God.
As for the bible being shown to be true. Because historical names or places or even events may or may not be proved to be correct from historical records, these do not constitute robust evidence that God is real. You would not say that Osiris must be true because we have evidence for the Pharoes, pyramids, and ancient texts that depict the Egyption afterlife.
Why do you not believe in the god Osiris? The characters and places on the ancient Egyptian records are known to be true. This is the same evidence you are presenting for your God. A relatively young god by the way. He did not appear in the mind of man or in any writings for a couple of thousand years AFTER the ancient Egyption gods.
You are presenting evidence for one thing as poor for the evidence of another thing. That is not how evidence works.
When it comes to God. There is not a shred of evidence that he exists. The creation story is so full holes as is the flood story.
We make it all up.dream it all up the kingdom of heaven is within you.dreamt . from within
It’s a belief based on biases not facts. There was no resurrection, if there were we wouldn’t need a new religion. It’s all mythology
Exactly!
Her voice reminds me of Sandra Bullock in Miss Congeniality. Great clip!
I heard "so I really wanted to believe....then I read this apologists book...and I convinced myself".
No she didn't want to believe. I assure you she's now shunned by her peers.
@@georgewagner7787 I assure you that if she was not predisposed to belief, no academic study of the issue would make her a believer. Apologetics are shockingly bad.
Yes if a supernatural event was written to take place during the civil war then no, we don’t have good evidence to believe that either
she following the golden threat. if one is honest and curious the evidence is fantastic and irresistable
@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.
Read Who moved the stone? By Morrison
The biggest error most scholars - even the critical ones- make about Jesus and his followers: they grant without question sincerity. Ask yourself, "What do faith healers throughout history and today have in common?" They are running a con. They are a cult of personality and their religion affords them a life they would not otherwise enjoy. If someone is raising the dead today, we all know it's a scam, and the past was no different. Here's another 2 big ones against the resurrection: First, why did Jesus only appear to his followers? Why not also appear to the Sanhedrin? Why not appear in Rome? Or the Temple? Secondly, the world obviously didn't end and the dead rise as Jesus and Paul predicted (I don't think Jesus' and Paul's teachings are the same on this, but nevertheless what they taught didn't occur).
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.
Well there is a bit of a difference between accounts of wars that we know have happened vs miraculous events that need one heck of a lot more evidence.
Exactly, There are no supernatural miracle claims regarding the civil war
Sounds like they're just trying to rationalize what they want to believe.
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.
What I think both speakers have been able to achieve from all they have said is that the narratives in the gospels do not qualify to be of divine origin but rather narratives of some people who claimed to have had a special experience. Experience they narrated from different lenses.
for those of us who are investigating Jesus/trying to come to faith in Christ, this is amazing. almost groundbreaking, for an expert in the field to talk abt the NT like this. i loved listening to this!!!!
She is not an expert in the field of New Testament Studies. She is an expert in Christianity in the United States.
She is very well informed in the specific matters she addresses, and has clearly understood core concepts and arguments made in significant historical detail.
It also goes the other way. Dr. Bart Ehrman is a new testament scholar and historian, was an evangelical Chhristian and now is an agnostic because he found problems with christian theology particularly with the problem of evil. Is this not also groundbreaking, that a former evangelical new testament scholar has deconverted?
@@Augie-r9q Erhman is a well known skeptic. Are his views compelling to Molly (a friend of his) or, more importantly, to Wright, Hays, Bauckman, or many others of top rank in this field? No. There is no shortcut to doing the hard work of actual research, which Molly has done, if you want to clearly understand the evidence and arguments alluded to here. That she and Bart draw different conclusions, in and of itself, tells one little about the actual body of scholarship under discussion.
@@Augie-r9q excellent point! Dr. Ehrman first left evangelical Christianity because of the problems he saw in New Testament manuscripts.
I think her statement about how radical the notion of the Messiah, who was thought to be a political leader, akin to the Dali Lama, was then killed. It took a while for the people there to „make sense of it.“. We forget, or never knew, how problematic it was for those who were there.
So what exactly was it that convinced her?
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?
Excellent.
4 minutes in and nothing solide yet….
14 minutes in and super solid
Of Course. Plus there is this: Modern cosmology is presently handicapped by a pre-occupation with “string theory”. A similar gating happened during the early days of modern physics when Galilleo was persecutes by the Church because they’re clung to “classical” physics. Thus they were loath to examine the much more rigorous science of Newton, One result was a hundred years later Greek philosophy was dismissed by Hume. His now outdated anti- supernaturalism has now become orthodoxy.
Protect this woman
Why? Is she being threatened? 🙄
@@theunknownatheist3815 it's a saying I like from a Tom MacDonald shirt. You say it when you like someone. It may come from rap culture or memes maybe.
4:52 Mark is her favorite? It doesn’t even have the resurrection. The women just run away scared. Then it ends
I find this very funny that two women are so worked up in their talk about an absolutely corrupt Bible. After everything said, it is still corrupt.
I recommend the book “Liberated from Religion”, by Paulo Bittencourt.
I am a Christian theist and I don't buy the standard evangelical evidence or this woman's reflections - which some think are so sufficient.
This women is simply ignorant of the issues with these matters - and sad to say seems like a pretty shallow person. I would question what kind of historian she really is.
As to whether God genuinely worked in her life to bring a connection - that is a completely different issue.
What do you think of Bart Ehrman's work especially Forged. Also the work of Israeli archaologist Israel Finkelstein The Bible Unearthed arguning on the exodus and conquest. Even Peter Enns did a good summery on the conquest accounts.
Digging for Answers
Biblical Archaeologists are about as certain as you can be about these things that the conquest of Canaan as the Bible describes did not happen: no mass invasion from the outside by an Israelite army and no extermination of Canaanites as God commanded
One thing archaeologists can tell us is whether or not a city was violently destroyed by outside invaders and whether a new group of people took up residence, Battle and destructions of cities leave archaeological footprints - things like soot(if the town was burned0, weapons, smashed pottery, and human bones. Mass migrations of people groups as the Bible describes with Israel entering Canaan would cause some cultural upheaval and leave some sort of remains for archaeologists to dig up and write long books about to help them get tenure.
Remember those thirty-one Canaanite towns listed in the Book of Joshua (plus other towns on either side of the Jordan River)? Sixteen towns were destroyed according to the stories in the books of Numbers, Joshua and Judges. Of those sixteen, two or three maybe four cities show signs of violent destruction at or around the time when Joshua and his army would have been ploughing through Canaan(thirteenth centuryBCE about 200 years before the time of King David)). That’s it
The towns on the other side of the Jordan River, in Moab, don’t look like they were even occupied at the time.
We also read in the Bible that twelve towns were taken over without a fight. But of those twelve only seven were even occupied at the time , according to archaeological findings. And of those same twelve towns that the Bible says weren’t destroyed, three actually do show signs of destruction.
In other words, archaeology and the biblical story don’t line up well at all.
Jericho, the first of the towns to be razed in the Book of Joshua, is the most famous example. Not only was Jericho minimally inhabited at the best of time, but it had no massive protective walls, which means the biblical story of the “walls of Jericho” tumbling down - at least that’s what a hundred years of digging there has shown us.
What most everyone is certain about however, is that the Bible;’s version of events is not what happened. And that puts the question “How could God have all those Canaanites put to death?” in a different light, indeed. He didn’t.
From Peter Enns The Bible Tells Me So, pp. 58-60 HarperOne , 2015.
spot on the resurrection lie is utterly irrelevant to the teaching of impartial love as is the god fantasy..
Hearsay is*Not* evidence
don't you love her gestures? I would like to talk with her in person. I bet she is a good professor.
She is just too animated to watch
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!
NT Wright's book is not a slog he is such a good writer and has a clear argument that is developed through the chapters why wpuld she say that
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.
Wow, a non-woke history professor. Imagine that.
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.
@@TearDownThisWall 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.
Do you like to oppress people? What is wrong with being woke?
When I was 4 years old and heard about a talking snake I knew it was a scam. And rest is subterfuge.
The Bible doesn’t say it was a snake.
Ok. A talking donkey 🐴 @@Chussles
This channel obviously threatens many unbelievers!
How about mythvision ?😊
@@readynowforever3676 sorry, no comprende.
Nobody is threatened. You are free to believe and not to believe.
@@andywong9847 sure. But I don’t troll atheist websites throwing rocks at their beliefs. Why on earth are they here if our faith is a waste of time?
@@andywong9847 yeah, I think it threatens them.
Jesus Christ wasn't a self-proclaimed Messiah. He was prophesied according to the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, but also was authenticated by John the Baptist (who was last of the Old Testament prophets).
Yep, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy
@@CMVMic self-fulfilling? Can anyone decide where they're going to be born?
@@nmbr1son64 no, ppl dont decide where theyre born. Whats the relevance of that? Ppl can still raise a child to believe they are a messiah based on a prophecy
@@CMVMic the ONLY reason to raise a child to believe He is Messiah is by Divine directive. Angels appeared to announce Jesus' birth to both Mary and Joseph. The angel even told them what name to give the Child.
@@nmbr1son64 that doesnt follow. Typical theist nonsequitur
Yes. "Inerrant" is a HUMAN fabricated falsehood about such a rich mishmash of texts, authors, experiences, personalities, and cultural / historical contexts. Healthy to let it go, and note that God is neither alarmed nor endangered by doing so.
@Barry - VERY WELL SAID!!
A christian is about Christ - NOT about about the Bible
No it isn't; Inerrant" is simply a cognate of infallible.
No university for you titch, but that was ever so was it not? Be advised and mind well, always double check, because if you don't another will.Oh hubris ever there to smack the swaggering and silly.
The speaker is impressed by authors but mumbles their names and neglects to post them in the Description.
I also like to add that evidence for the Civil War is much better than that for the resurrection.
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.
The gospels are dated late in the 1st Century-with some placing John very early in the 2nd-is because the gospel that is determined to have been written first-Mark-has a prophecy by Jesus regarding the Temple, that it would be destroyed.
The Romans destroyed it in 70 AD, and so from thence-in secular academia-the gosoel must have been written in 70 AD, at the earliest, because of that, so Matthew and Luke must have come after, and John even later.
Because, it is premised, Jesus cannot possibly have predicted the destruction of the Temple.
“Mystical experience “ does not indicate truth. Mystical experience is emotional, emotions change, minute by minute. Only the Holy Spirit makes it possible for you to believe, He is truth, He doesn’t lie. Forget “mystical experience.”
Mystical experience is not emotional, it's participatory, existential
It's mostly the brain acting up
Molly is just great!
I didn't realize that Molly had become a Christian. Pretty cool.
I have an axiom- for every “expert”, there is an equal & opposite “expert”.
So, I’ll see whoever this chick is, and raise you a Bart Ehrman. But of course, you’ll have an issue with that. 🙄
What an emotional word salad!
Exactly
Example?
I would note that a number of Protestant and Catholic critics of Tom Wright's book on the resurrection of Christ, and the promise of resurrection for mankind, characterized his conclusions as being "Mormon" (a nickame for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Wright does not quote or cite ANY CJCLDS source in his book, or discuss their doctrines at all, or contrast them with other denominations' doctrines. But the CJCLDS does teach that the resurrection will eventually encompass EVERY human who has ever lived, and that resurrection consists of an immortal spirit, which continues to live after death in a realm of spirits, returning to inhabit an immortal, physical body that will never die. That is also the teaching that Wright finds in the New Testament, contrary to the ideas of many modern Christian denominations who don't believe in a physical body continuing in eternity. In First Things journal, in response to the critics who indicted him for endorsing what they thought is an heretical belief about a physical immortal resurrection, Wright said "The Mormons read the Bible more carefully than many other people.". The CJCLDS point out that Christ has a resurrected, immortal physical body, and he is the divine Son of God the Father. They therefore argue that their belief that God the Father also has an immortal, physical body, LIKE THE SON, is also consistent with the Bible. And they teach that all human beings are embodied spirits who are the children of the Father, who are intended to become like Him and his Only Begotten Son, both embodied and immortal for eternity. The LDS explain the reason for the physical resurrection, which other churches cannot.
The Bible is true because it says it is true.
And you claim truth because you say its true.
@@jake5811 Touche!
Not at all what is being said.
@@terrytigner9600 ----He presented a self-defeating argument.
I thought this circular argument was put forward by atheists to parody poor apologetics, but perhaps some people actually believe this?
It always makes me laugh when people put so much emphasis on their own religion, or the religion they have been surrounded by most of their lives, while simultaneously forgetting/ignoring that various cultures existed, flourished, and had a variety of superstitious stories, beliefs, and claims.
Why is it that they never consider the superstitious and magical claims of other religions or cultures as seriously as their own?
Why do they not believe in oracles and djinn, or the "supernatural" claims and gods of other pantheons who were genuinely believed to have effects on the real world? Why are these discredited as if people didn't base their lives around their apparent truthfulness?
Why should anyone take the fabled resurrection of Jesus seriously, but not take the stories of the Iliad, Heracles, the Assyrians, the Chinese, or the Vedas seriously?
Would she change her mind about the Norse stories such as how Thor killed all the frost giants? Was the Earth made from the body and blood of Ymir?
Let it also be known that being a historian does not exclude you from superstitious thinking. For example, in at least one of his letters, the historian Pliny the Elder, wrote about how he believed in ghosts because he HEARD A STORY from someone. That's it. Not because he had evidence, but because he heard a story. That's something to keep in mind when it comes to the gospels, Christianity, and religion in general.
I don't discredit her work as a historian of religion and it's history in North America, however i do find it interesting that she's not saying this as an Ancient Near East scholar, but as a North American scholar.
Her exact irrationality can be applied to Aladdin and the rest of the fairy tales man has ever devised as artifices.
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 clearly are too unaware of parapsychology, spiritualism, OBEs, the double-slit experiment, and the current scientific consensus that the nature and the effects of our own consciousness are quite poorly understood. Having a miracle worker heal himself and get out of tomb doesn't sound too odd.
The gospels were written by UNKNOWN authors who were NOT eyewitnesses. The names Mark, John and Luke were added later. Anyway, the resurrection is of course utter nonsense. And science and especially evolution have already debunked the crux of christianity and the crux of all the other religions I know of ages ago!
Evolution is an unproven theory. Even Darwin admitted as much. If you think there has been enough time on this earth for humans to evolve from sludge you are a fantasist.
All dreamt up, just like we are.the entire human situation has its foundation on quicksand
There is no substitute for finding Jesus' resurrection in the Shroud of Turin. Seeing is believing.
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.
@@MarcWilliams-v9w 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.
@@MarcWilliams-v9w 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.
Such flawed logic so Huckleberry Finn is real because of the writing style They don’t mention the theological differences between the gospels?Paul was in a sect that believed in resurrection. We have examples of cults doubling down when their leader dies sorry it’s totally fine to be Christian you just have good evidence. They should read Richard c Miller then compare both books. Missing bodies was a trope in Greek world. The idea that the the gospel writers had no idea about the culture is insulting them.
You meant “Huckleberry Finn”, right? Was that some odd autocorrect? 😂
@@theunknownatheist3815 thanks
Fortunately, the number of people holding on to these fairy tales is steadily declining with time.
Happy 2024 years after (checks notes) nothing special must have happened.....
Interesting. Reading the gospels wasn’t enough for her. She needed N.T. Wright to convince her. Lol
Others read Bart Ehrman and take the opposite view.
A good general makes sure that all of his troops going into battle gets a proper briefing to make sure that they are on the same page. Did Jesus do that. He didn’t even write anything down. Did he not know that the memory of uneducated man is not dependable. Furthermore, a three year ministry is woefully inadequate to do anything substantial.
Another thing, we are told that, after he arose, Jesus came through a wall to get to the disciples who were a hidden huddled mass of mess terrified of Rome, frightened of the Jews and apprehensive and guilt ridden about having lied to and then deserted Jesus. Yet, when Jesus came in, not one disciple attempted to run, apologize, repented or asked Jesus what happened to him. Not one. Psychology played no part in the stories in the gospels. Every soul was on robotic mode. I suppose.
Wow!
Molly Worhten's' constant and exaggerated physical expressions are a major distraction to understanding whatever it is she's are trying to explain!
A really well argumented, thought- and felt-out speech!
The Gospels tell a truly amazing and true story!
Jesus is King!
☦❤
She is *Lying* that pseudo interview is a put-up-job, a con trick-its the old I-have-changed-my-mind con trick -it is as old as the hills.People will happily lie their heads off in what they deceive themselves into thinking is a good cause.
I loved watching her express her feelings with her hands
It's over the top for me.
Why did authors of the gospels write them in the first place?
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?
It's just a threat to unbelievers of many threats.
Believe in Jesus. If not, he'll come back and deal with you.
The real world doesn't work that way. Only in fiction.
Many feel threatened as many threatened that ghosts will harm them.
???