God's Not Dead 2 Page #8

---

Objection, leading.

And counsel is

testifying again, Your Honor.

I'll rephrase.

How many of your cold cases were solved

through the use of DNA evidence?

None. Not one.

That's often popular on TV, but our

departments never had the good fortune

of solving a cold case with DNA.

Well, how do most

of these cases get solved?

Often by examining eyewitness claims,

witness claims that were

made many years earlier,

even though often our

witnesses are now deceased.

Forgive my ignorance, Mr. Wallace,

but how is that possible?

Well, we have a number

of techniques we can use

to test the reliability of an eyewitness,

including something called

forensic statement analysis.

That's a discipline where we scrutinize

the statements of eyewitnesses

and looking at what

they choose to minimize,

what they choose to emphasize,

what they omit altogether,

how they expand time or contract time.

And when we examine these

kinds of eyewitness accounts,

we can usually tell who's lying,

and who's telling the truth,

and even who the guilty party is.

And did you apply this skill set anytime

outside of your official capacity?

Yes, I applied my expertise

to the death of Jesus

at the hands of the Romans,

and I actually looked at the gospels

as I would any other set

of forensic statements.

Within a matter of months,

I determined that the four gospels,

written from different perspectives,

contained the eyewitness

accounts about the life,

ministry, death,

and resurrection of Jesus.

And did you consider that the four

accounts might be part of a conspiracy,

designed to promote belief

in a fledgling faith?

Yeah, you have to consider conspiracies

when assessing eyewitness accounts,

but successful conspiracies typically

involve the fewest number of people.

It's a lot easier for 2 people to lie

and keep a secret than it is for 20.

And that's really the problem

with the conspiracy theories

related to the apostles

in the 1st century.

There are just far too many of them

trying to hold this conspiracy

for far too long a period of time.

And far worse, they're experiencing

pressure like no other,

unimaginable pressure.

Every one of these folks

was tortured and died

for what they claimed to see, and none

of them ever recanted their story.

So, the idea that this is a

conspiracy in the 1 st century

is just really unreasonable.

Instead, what I see in the gospels

is something I call unintended

eyewitness support statement.

What's an unintended

eyewitness support statement?

If I can borrow your Bible?

Let me go to the Gospel of Matthew

for an example of this.

I'll start with a passage

in which Jesus is in front

of Caiaphas at a hearing.

It says here, "Then they spit in his face

"and struck him with their fists.

"Others slapped him and said,

'Prophesy to us, Christ. Who hit you?"'

Now, that seems like

a very simple request,

given that the people who hit him

are standing right in front of him.

This makes no sense.

Why would it be prophecy to be

able to tell you who hit you?

But it's not until you read Luke

that you get an answer to this.

He says, "The men who were guarding Jesus

"began mocking and beating him.

"They blindfolded him and demanded,

'Prophesy, who hit you?"'

So, now we know why this was a challenge,

'cause Luke tells us the

thing that Matthew left out,

that he was actually blindfolded

at the time this took place.

This is very common, this kind of

unintentional eyewitness support

that fills in a detail

that the first witness left out.

After years of scrutinizing

these gospels using the template

that I use to determine

if an eyewitness is reliable,

I concluded that the

four gospels in this book

contained the reliable accounts

of the actual words of Jesus.

And that's to include the statements

quoted by Ms. Wesley in her class?

Absolutely.

Thank you, Detective.

Your witness.

Detective Wallace,

I'm not gonna try to match

biblical knowledge with you.

But isn't it true that these

gospel accounts vary widely

in what they say, that there are numerous

discrepancies between these accounts?

Absolutely, but that's

exactly what we should expect.

I don't quite understand that.

Well, reliable eyewitness

accounts always differ slightly

in the way they recall the story.

They're coming to it from different

geographic perspectives, their history,

even where they are located in the room.

When I examined the gospels,

I was trying to determine

if these were accurate, reliable accounts,

in spite of any differences

there might be between the accounts.

Ah, and as a devout Christian,

you feel you succeeded?

Ah, Mr. Kane.

I think you misunderstand me.

When I began this study,

I was a devout atheist.

I began examining the gospels

as a committed skeptic,

not as a believer.

You see, I wasn't raised

in a Christian environment,

although I do think I have an unusually

high regard for the value of evidence.

I'm not a Christian

because I was raised that way

or because I hoped it would satisfy

some need or accomplish some goal.

I'm simply a Christian

because it's evidentially true.

Motion to strike, Your Honor.

Granted.

Jury's instructed to ignore

Detective Wallace's last remark.

No further questions.

Witness is excused.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Endler, your next witness.

We don't have one, Your Honor.

She didn't do anything wrong;

She was just trying to help me!

Brooke!

Order! I'll have order!

Young lady, your youth is no excuse

for disturbing the sanctity of this court.

But this case is supposed to be about me.

I'm almost 17 years old;

It's not like I can't think for myself.

I just don't have the right to speak.

- Brooke, what are you doing?

- Not unless you are called

as a witness, young lady.

If I put her on the stand,

what am I gonna hear?

That she asked a question

and I answered it.

Your Honor, we'd like to call

Ms. Brooke Thawley to the stand.

Objection, Your Honor!

Ms. Thawley is a minor.

Her parents do not want her subjected

to the emotional pressure

of testifying against her own teacher.

Ms. Thawley, are you willing

to testify on your own behalf?

Yes, Your Honor.

And do you understand

that you will have to answer

all the questions truthfully,

regardless of your feelings,

and that failure to do so

is punishable by law?

Yes, Your Honor.

I'm not afraid of telling the truth.

I'm only afraid

of not being able to tell it.

I will allow this witness.

Objection overruled.

Brooke, in class, who first

brought up the name "Jesus,"

you or Ms. Wesley?

I did.

As part of a question?

Yes.

And at that time, did you feel like you

were asking a faith-based question?

No, not really.

It just seemed like

Martin Luther King and Jesus

were saying similar things,

so I brought it up.

And did you consider Ms. Wesley's response

to be a reasonable answer

to your question?

Yes.

So, if I'm hearing you correctly,

you asked a question in history

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes