Alisa Childers I Blog

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? A Historian, an Atheist, a Skeptic, a Theologian, and an Ex-Con Weigh In

4/11/2017

It's that time of year again—the time when Christians come together to celebrate the pinnacle of our faith, the resurrection of Jesus. It's also the time when news outlets like Time, the Discovery Channel, and Newsweek unleash their skepticism about Christianity, the Bible, and the resurrection. It can be confusing to wade through the various historical evidences, personal beliefs, and opinions floating around in scholarship and the blogosphere. Here are quotes from several sources who all have unique qualifications and an interesting take on the evidence:

1. The Historian

Gary Habermas is an American historian, and the Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy at Liberty University. He is considered to be one of the foremost scholars on the resurrection of Jesus. While researching the resurrection, he combed through the works of both secular and Christian scholars. He wrote:

I recently completed an overview of more than 1,400 sources on the resurrection of Jesus published since 1975. I studied and catalogued about 650 of these texts in English, German, and French. Some of the results of this study are certainly intriguing. For example, perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something. (1)

There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus' resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus' death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them risen from the dead. (2)

2. The Atheist

Gerd Ludemann is a German New Testament scholar, historian, and atheist. He was once a professing Christian, but walked away from his faith when he became convinced that very little of what is contained in the New Testament is historically reliable. Even so, he wrote:

It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus's death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.(3)

3. The Skeptic

Bart Ehrman is the Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is one of the most respected scholars in the field of New Testament studies—and he is agnostic. About the resurrection of Jesus, he wrote:

Historians, of course, have no difficulty speaking about the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, since this is a matter of public record. It is a historical fact that some of Jesus' followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the Apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death. Thus, for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in the resurrection. (4)

In a recent blog post he wrote:

The most important thing to stress is that there are two historical realities that simply cannot be denied. The followers of Jesus did claim that Jesus came back to life. If they had not claimed that, we would not have Christianity. So they did claim it. Moreover, they did claim that they knew he rose precisely because some of them saw him alive again afterward. No one can doubt that. (5)

4. The Theologian

The type of historical evidence above caused leading New Testament scholar, historian, and theologian N.T. Wright to conclude:

As a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him. (6)

5. The Ex-con

Charles Colson, who once served as Special Counsel to President Richard Nixon, famously went to prison for his involvement in the Watergate scandal in the early 70's. He became a Christian in 1973, largely due to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. One detail regarding Watergate was similar to the resurrection: in both cases, 12 men claimed something that would affect world history. In the case of Watergate, it only took two weeks for them to crack under pressure:

The real cover-up, the lie, could only be held together for two weeks, and then everybody else jumped ship in order to save themselves. Now, the fact is that all that those around the President were facing was embarrassment, maybe prison. Nobody's life was at stake.

But what about the disciples? Twelve powerless men, peasants really, were facing not just embarrassment or political disgrace, but beatings, stonings, execution. Every single one of the disciples insisted, to their dying breaths, that they had physically seen Jesus bodily raised from the dead. Don't you think that one of those apostles would have cracked before being beheaded or stoned? That one of them would have made a deal with the authorities? None did.

Jesus is Lord: That's the thrilling message of Easter. And it’s an historic fact, one convincingly established by the evidence—and one you can bet your life upon. Go ahead researchers—dig up all the old graves you want. You won't change a thing. He has risen. (7)

Even the atheists and skeptics confirm that Jesus' disciples claimed and believed that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. History tells us that they were willing to suffer and die for that belief. It's reasonable to confidently agree with what the church has affirmed over the centuries—"Christ is risen. He is risen indeed!"


Please subscribe to have my weekly blog posts delivered directly to your inbox, and join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter!

References:

(1) Gary R. Habermas & Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2004) p. 60 (Emphasis mine)
(2) Ibid., p. 49
(3) Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) p. 80
(4) Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 2004) p. 234 (Emphasis mine)
(5) Bart Ehrman, "Questions on the Resurrection and My Personal Spiritual Experiences: Readers' Mailbag" www.ehrmanblog.org, March 24, 2017, accessed April 6, 2017
(6) N.T. Wright, "The New Unimproved Jesus," Christianity Today (September 13, 1993), p. 26 (Cited by William Lane Craig, "The Resurrection of Jesus" www.reasonablefaith.org, accessed April 6, 2017)
(7) Charles Colson, "An Unholy Hoax?" www.epm.org, March 29, 2002, accessed April 6, 2017.
(8) John 11:25-26

18 Comments

Louis

4/11/2017 09:14:19 pm

Most who don't believe are doubting Thomases. They won't believe until they see, hear, feel, etc. By then it may be too late.

David Siems

4/14/2017 02:29:45 pm

It's been my experience. Not that people DON'T believe. Rather they WON'T believe.

Bob Seidensticker link

4/17/2017 08:53:05 pm

I don't see your argument as especially convincing. The non-Christians don't think that Jesus rose from the dead.

barry

4/20/2017 07:24:08 pm

Hello Ms. Childers,

I found your blog via one of your amazon.com posts.

I would be willing to have separate dialogues with you on the identity, testimony and credibility of each individual resurrection "eyewitness" mentioned in the NT. Or we can discuss whatever bible or apologetics topic you wish (I'm an atheist).

It is my contention that all such witnesses have identity, testimony and credibility problems more than sufficient to justify skepticism of their claims. Skeptics hardly need to hide behind David Hume's experiential argument against miracles. The resurrection of Jesus fails on the merits, even assuming supernaturalism is more justified than naturalism.

Here are my beliefs:

1 - good old fashioned lying and embellishment not only better account for the stories of disciples experiencing something, than does the theory that they actually experienced a genuinely resurrected Jesus, but the skeptical theory would seem virtually certain in light of statements made in the gospel of John. Therefore Habermas' minimal facts argument is nowhere near as persuasive as he thinks it is.

2 - Generously assuming no problems with apostolic authorship of NT books, there are only 3 resurrection witnesses named in the NT, whose testimony comes down to us today in first-hand form; Matthew, John and Paul. All other resurrection testimony in the NT is either hearsay, or doesn't come down to us today in first-hand form.

3 - Neither Mark nor Peter had much interest in producing a written gospel, and it was peer pressure, not inspiration of God, that caused Mark to reluctantly to write out this gospel.

4 - Mark is the earliest gospel.

5 - Mark's most likely original ending was the place we now call 16:8, so the earliest gospel did not tell of any resurrection appearances, while the contrary view simply mires the apologist in a world of scholarly hurt.

6 - The author of Matthew is likely not an eyewitness of Jesus, because said author borrows far more heavily from non-eyewitness Mark than can be reasonably allowed for. This cannot be changed by pretentious apologists who can conjure up scenarios in which an eyewitness chooses to speak through a non-eyewitness.

7 - Canonical Matthew might preserve snippets of genuinely Matthian testimony, but what exactly originates from him and what originates from the anonymous scribes, can no more be determined than can the sayings of the historical Jesus be disentangled with any confidence from the inauthentic sayings.

8 - Luke gave false impressions of history to his readers, and he probably got the idea from his mentor, Paul.

9 - John's gospel was intended to be "spiritual" in a way distinguishable from "historical", and the idea that Matthew, Luke and Mark knew Jesus said all these high-christological things, but "chose to exclude them" anyway, is highly unlikely given how the deity of Jesus was the doctrine unbelievers would find the most intolerable. It is more likely that John, assuredly the last produced of the 4 canonical gospels, invented most of the Jesus-sayings now found in only his gospel.

9a - If the Muratorian Fragment's testimony be admitted, John's gospel does not originate in John's own personal eyewitness recollections, but in the visions experienced by the other 10 disciples, so that who said what, and what level of credibility each source had, will be impossible to determine, thus mooting John's gospel for purposes of resurrection argumentation.

10 - Apostle Paul approved of giving a false impression of his beliefs to whoever he was with, if he felt doing so would help him gain more converts. Since apologists are quick to leap upon any bit of dishonesty in skeptics and pretend that this is more than sufficient to rationally justify ignoring or banning them from discussions, fairness requires that you also ban Paul from your discussions.

11 - The NT contains a significant amount of information indicating that seeing the resurrected Jesus was something far less than the "mightily transforming experience" today's apologists ceaselessly exalt it to be.

12 - It is perfectly irrational to encourage the average unbeliever on the street to check out the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

13 - The gospels and Paul give us good reasons to think several different hallucinations by several different people, combined with a good bit of ability to embellish history, accounts for the gospel resurrection narratives.

14 - In Deut. 28, Moses not only threatens that God will send the most horrible imaginable curses on those who disobey, such as rape (v. 30), kidnapping (v. 41) and parental cannibalism (v. 53), but he also says God will "delight" to inflict these atrocities on Israel no less than He delights to prosper those who obey (v. 63). Getting a "thrill" out of such horrors represents the very heart of sadistic lunacy. You have the option, of course, to assert that God is imperfect, especially in light of the inability of classic

Krisztián

3/28/2021 02:53:21 am

I would recommend you to have a dialogue with J. Warner Wallace. He probably has more experience than you do in eyewitness testimonies. He used to be an atheist himself until he realized that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. He is the one who can correct you about your wrong assumptions. Scepticism does not prove a thing by the way. God bless you. (A believer)

Gary

3/28/2021 10:50:01 am

Have you read Warner's books? I have. The mistake Warner makes is to assume that the Gospels ARE eyewitness statements. He makes this huge assumption simply because that is the position of evangelical scholars. Evangelical scholars are a minority of Bible scholars. The majority of scholars doubt the eyewitness or even the associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels. Therefore, Warner's entire argument is based on minority scholarly opinion. Imagine going to court when the success of your case depends on getting the judge or jury to side with the minority opinion of experts. Not good.

Theresa

4/16/2022 05:55:14 pm

Barry, you spend an awful lot of precious time trying to convince people that the resurrection of Jesus didn't happen. Why? I understand people desperately trying to get people to believe in the resurrection of Christ - because if it's true, it's eternally important. If it were untrue, it would not matter what anyone believed. If I didn't believe in and trust in Jesus, I sure wouldn't waste my breath trying to debate it with people who did believe it. Seems like a colossal waste of time. What's your desire in preaching this anti-gospel? Is it a desire to steal people's faith from them? What good would that do? Or are you simply hoping for a platform to be famous or feel important? I just don't get it.

Barry

4/24/2017 04:03:34 pm

"Even the atheists and skeptics confirm that Jesus' disciples claimed and believed that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead."
----------Barry: we also confirm that Mary-fanatics in Fatima and elsewhere "claimed and believed" that they had seen divine visions of the virgin Mary. I don't see how our admitting to this plank in the minimal facts argument of Habermas/Craig bestows any significant advantage to the apologist.

We could just as easily argue that because Paul denies that his gospel rests on any man's tradition or authority (Galatians 1:1, 11-12), then the gospel references he makes in 1st Cor. 15:3-4 (which Habermas tries to get dated all the way back to 35 a.d.,) only refers to a gospel version that Paul says doesn't rest on any human tradition or authority.

That is, when Paul says Jesus rose again the third day according to the Scripture, he is only saying that God revealed this fact to him through scripture without the aid of any human tradition or authority, and he then supplements this entirely mental revelation gospel with historical traditions about Peter and others seeing the resurrected Jesus.

The historical evidence that the apostles were presented by secular authorities with death or denial of Christ, and chose death, is ambiguous and slight, and one's ability to get carried away in extreme fits of nearly indescribable religious ecstasy plausibly account for a person who didn't physically see a resurrected Jesus, to become so convinced of it anyway, that they were willing to die for such belief.

(See Acts 2, unbelievers interpreted the apostles as being drunk; 1st Cor. 14:23, Paul thinks the way the Corinthians exercise spiritual gifts motivates unbelievers to conclude they are crazy; 2nd Cor. 12:1-4, Paul cannot tell, even some 14 years after the fact, if his trip to heaven was physical or an out-of-body experience, and he confuses this absurdity with his infamous telling the story in the third-person, as if the man he was talking about was somebody else, when most scholars think he's talking about himself nonetheless; Acts 9, 22, 26, the men with Paul couldn't see the Jesus Paul was allegedly speaking with, so this too was likely a completely mental vision story, as confirmed by Paul characterizing this experience as an optasia in 26:19, the same Greek word he used in 2nd Cor. 12:1 to describe an even more esoteric experience)

Alisa Childers

4/24/2017 09:32:40 pm

Hi Barry, I believe there are a couple of problems with your Mary analogy. First, the people claiming to have seen a vision of her weren't eyewitnesses of her actual life. Also, to my knowledge, they weren't claiming that Mary had come back to life, risen from the dead—they were visions. Even if they actually did have visions, it wouldn't prove anything about Mary's life. However, in the case of Jesus, those who knew him and walked with him claimed he came back to life, was seen by over 500 witnesses and stayed with them for forty days. That is a much bigger claim than to simply have seen a vision—and one that could have been easily disproven if it wasn't true.

Regarding the creed in 1 Corinthians 15, you are mis-characterizing the scholarship on that. Habermas isn't "trying" to date it early—it is widely accepted that this creed originated 3-7 years after Jesus' death. Even far-left liberal theologian Dominic Crossan dates it to the early 30's AD.

I don't agree with your characterization of Paul—he was an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ.

4/25/2017 04:50:12 pm

Hi Alisa,

"Feel free to contact me with any questions or subjects you would like me to write about. "
Could you please state how and when you trained in apologetics to become a teacher of that subject, and from what institution you gained your diploma or degree or certificate of completion?

In answer to your reply here: Why would a modern Catholic have to have been a witness to Mary's life, before they could be deemed credible in their story of having seen Mary in modern times? Daniel never personally knew the Jesus of the first century, but you have no problems believing that 600 years before Jesus, Daniel still had a vision of him, right? Most conservatives think Joshua was looking at Jesus in Joshua 5:13, yet because the text says Joshua "lifted up his eyes", it is presenting his viewing of Christ as a vision. Cf. 1st Chronicles 21:16, where David is able to see angels he wasn't able to see before. Joshua shows in 5:13 that he wasn't previously familiar with this particular "captain of the Lords's host"

Then you assert that Jesus coming back from the dead is a significant difference from the Fatima miracles where Mary is not said to have resurrected from death but only to have 'appeared'. Again, I find this difference to be irrelevant. Apologists are constantly reminding us that it is the credibility of the eyewitness that is most important, so I simply ask that you follow suit, and ask what was reported in Fatima and whether the witnesses were credible. How different that stuff was from what happened in Jesus' case is immaterial.

You say if Catholics had true visions of Mary this wouldn't prove anything about her life. Again, I don't see the point: if the visions are true, they would justify Catholicism's devotion to Mary, which you currently regard as idolatry. The fact that the visions wouldn't say anything about her earthly life 2,000 years ago would be irrelevant to the problems the truth of said visions would create for non-Catholic Christians like you.

You assert that 500 people saw a risen Jesus. Surely you are aware that this claimed exact figure "500" depends on the credibility of the apostle Paul? Did you know that Paul honestly admitted that he would give a false impression of this true beliefs to whatever crowd he was talking to, if he thought such lies would win him more converts?

I did not misrepresent anything about Habermas or "scholarship". Because we have no record outside Galatians 1 of Paul ever doing anything in Arabia , we are forced to conclude, assuming Paul is telling the truth, that he didn't preach to the Corinthians until at least 14 years after his conversion (Gal. 1:16-17). If he converted in 35 a.d., then his first passing of the gospel to the Corinthians would have occurred around 50 a.d.

So when Paul says in 1st Cor. 15:3 that he had previously passed on to them what he "received", he means that in 50 a.d., he passed on to them a revelatory gospel that God gave him 14 years earlier, i.e., a gospel that he learned completely apart from the authority of other men (Gal. 1:1, 11-12). ALL scholars engage in error when they try to source this creed in people other than Paul. Hence, those who make up the "wide range of acceptance" of this creed dating to 35 a.d., are simply ignorng Paul's own statements.

Then you say Paul was an eyewitness of the risen Jesus, but a) that's not a scholarly way to address my argument from optasia in Acts 26:19, and

b) I was only allowing Luke's hearsay there for the sake of argument, Luke's story of Paul's Damascus-road-conversion is not the best evidence the NT gives us for Paul's conversion, because it is hearsay, and a common rule of historiography is that historians should use only their best evidence, and most people would agree that 2,000 year old hearsay is a rather sad basis upon which to justify one's choice to give up naturalism and espouse supernaturalism;

c) forgetting the hearsay objection, Acts 9 includes details that justify suspicion toward the theory that Paul's "seeing" was in the classic typical sense of seeing with his physical eyes (i.e., the "eye" in eyewitness), such as the admission that the men standing there with him "saw no one" (9:27).

J. Warner Wallace quickly conjured up a commentary on Paul not being an eyewitness, after I pointed this out to him some months ago, and he asserted that Paul could still be a legitimate witness even if he didn't see the risen Christ with his physical eyes. Wallace was apparently afraid that Paul's eyewitness status was sufficiently shaky that a backup apologetic needed to be at the read just in case the standard view buckled.

Finally, you will likely assert that the other men with Paul at least saw a light (Acts 22:9), but I do not believe that every single detail included in biblical stories is the historical truth, and since most Christian scholars deny biblical inerrancy, you cannot blame my denial of biblical inerrancy on my spiritual deadness or al

4/25/2017 09:17:04 pm

Barry, you seem well-versed in Christian apologetics, as I am in the common atheist objections that you have written at-length on many of my posts. Since you are familiar with the arguments, I simply don't have time to re-hash each one of them here.

Do you have a blog site? If so, I'd be happy to engage in a more formal 5 or 6 part back and forth debate on an agreed upon topic if you'd like. Regarding comments you leave here, I'm happy to dialogue, but I'll only be able to interact with objections that are relevant to the particular post. I won't have time to answer the different unrelated topics you introduce in many of your comments. Thanks for your comments and I'll consider some of your thoughts for future blog posts.

4/27/2017 01:09:31 pm

I have no blog yet, but will set one up.

My first argument would be that "formal" written debates allow the participants to avoid whatever they wish to avoid, while contraqwise, proceeding in regular conversational dialogue will more likely root out hidden areas of disagreement.

In other words, the process of dialoguing back and forth in normal conversation has greater probability of exposing shortcomings in somebody's presuppositions, than would be the case if all they had to do was answer the other girl's 2,000 word speech. I got far more out of watching scholars debate each other in this "point-to-point" way on John Ankerberg, than I ever did in watching live oral debates where each speaker gets to talk/rebut for several minutes at a time, uninterrupted.

Several reasons to view the conversation-approach to be better would be a) most people are not intellectuals, and "tune out" if they are hit with too much evidence for one side; b) most people are social, and tend to favor the conversational approach more than reading a 10 page speech; c) dialoguing on a narrowly-defined topic is absolutely necessary when atheists debate Christians on apologetics issues, since, as I'm sure you and other apologists know, we don't agree on too much anyway. ANYTHING you say will probably be the subject of disagreement, so keeping it simple and making sure to start at a legitimate beginning point is paramount. While more people would likely attend a debate entitled "Did Jesus rise from the dead?", it remains clear that a debate entitled "Can distrust of Papias' general credibility be rationally justified?" would probably bite into the controlling presuppositions of the speakers far more.

Finally, d) the key to resolving disagreements is to find common ground. The more common ground we have, the more likely we will resolve our disagreement on something.

It is the "cross-examination" part of the debate where the truly acid test of a person's beliefs/presuppositions legitimately begins.

Since you acknowledge my familiarity with apologetics (and I certainly acknowledge yours!), I deem it unnecessary to wrote any further "long" responses at your blog. It will probably be better if I ask direct questions about narrowly defined apologetics topics related to the subject of the particular blog that I respond to.

This has the advantaged of enabling you to post a reply without needing to have an hour of free time just to do it (yes, I'm guilty of the exact "long-speech-reply" that I just said cause people to tune out, but I'm trying to change my ways).

So since this blog is about Jesus rising from the dead, I would like to know under what circumstances you first drew the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead.

4/27/2017 10:55:43 pm

I'm happy to tell you the circumstances under which I first drew the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead. I was 5 years old. I was compelled by Christ's love and drawn by the Holy Spirit. I believed God's Word, and put my trust in Jesus, and as it says in Romans 8:16, His Spirit joined with my Spirit to affirm that I was God's child. Of course, as I grew up and encountered intellectual challenges, I had to dig deeper and face some doubt. But you asked about when I first drew the conclusion, and that's my honest answer.

greg wilson link

3/16/2018 11:24:29 pm

attention: (BARRY ) I don"t believe in atheists!!! God says everything in His creation cries out to you and all of us, that there is a Great Designer, leaving us and you, without an excuse, YOU have a conscious, given to you by God himself, and YOU have a lot of intelligence given to you by God as well, you can avoid this inner- voice and search for other alternatives, as I DID ,for many years, but I found that GOD IS REAL!!!! HIS NAME IS JESUS,HE LOVES YOU DEEPLY,MORE THAN YOU OR I CAN COMPREHEND!!!! You may be angry with Him, I was angry with Him for awhile too ,but it was one of the worst mistakes I ever made !!! God really cares , the one thing I have learned is, this planet we live on ,IS NOT HEAVEN !!! Lots of bad stuff happens here ,because of SIN, but God sent an antidote for sin, HIS SON, JESUS, my prayer is that you too find the antidote and find the your way to HEAVEN!!!!! God longs for, and yearns for your presence there, it won"t be the same without you, barry !!!!!

Jacob

4/14/2019 07:48:03 pm

As far as the resurrection is concerned - Jerusalem was "Ground Zero". This was where most of the eyewitnesses - who say they saw the resurrected Jesus - lived. When Paul and Luke went to Jerusalem they visited the one person on planet earth who would have known for sure whether or not Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead - his 'brother' James! James was the one person who could have brought Christianity to its knees by emphatically stating Jesus was dead and stayed dead. Instead - Josephus says in a statement that most historians believe is authentic - that James the brother of the 'so-called Christ' was executed by the Jewish religious authorities by stoning in the year we now call AD 62. The million dollar question is WHY was James executed? The answer is rather obvious - but apparently too difficult for Atheists and Muslims to accept - James was executed because he had become a Jewish Christian after seeing the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth.

Richard Jude Woerner

4/22/2019 10:37:21 am

One of the most common arguments about the resurrection is that no historian ever wrote about the resurrection or even the life of Christ. One question I ask is, when the letters of the N.T. were in circulation and were known where the churches were founded, more specifically Rome, why isn't there any writings by anyone in the 1st or 2nd centuries that refute the writings of the N.T.? Reason is simple, there aren't any. But then along comes Richard Carrier and he writes as if he has some insight that no one before ever had.

Besides, the Parable of the Sower explains much about why people don't believe. Goes all the way to Genesis 3 when Satan asked Eve, Hath God said... That doubt has robbed many of the truths in Scripture.

ralph

6/7/2020 10:12:17 am

Since Jesus "resurrection" is the only which allegededly happen in human history it is difficult to accept such claim.
Moreover to discuss about this possibility is absurd 2000 years after based only on "witnesses".

I prefer to rely on scientific evidence and not on sayings.

Sorry for the believers.

Karen

4/1/2021 12:54:30 pm

Hi Alisa,
We just had a Christian friend post a Bart Erhman interview on N{R on Facebook https://www.npr.org/people/2100593/terry-gross
It's really concerning. Lots of misrepresentation of scripture. I can't give any credibility to the teaching of a person who is a self proclaimed atheist and agnostic even if they are a Biblical scholar.
Love and appreciate the work you do Alisa,
Karen

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? A Historian, an Atheist, a Skeptic, a Theologian, and an Ex-Con Weigh In

Leave a Reply.