Top Pick Pinkeye Pea

Marsoni

M251S

$12.99

Get it in 3 business days with 1 day shipping. Friday, May 29

Top Pick Pinkeye PeaBe sure to check out our Cow Pea Growing Guide for more tips & tricks on successfully growing cow peas in your garden. Top Pick Pinkeye Pea is an open pollinated cowpea variety known for its concentrated pod set at the top of the plant. This southern pea is an improved pinkeye variety that produces delicious, cream colored peas. They have a creamy texture and a sweeter, more earthy flavor than traditional pinkeye pea varieties. Plants have a

Easy Shipping

Quick Dispatch:

Your Top Pick Pinkeye Pea orders ship within 1-2 business days.

Delivery Options:

Standard: 3-7 business days
Fast: 2-3 business days
Express: 1-2 business days

Order Tracking:

You'll receive a tracking link by email once your Top Pick Pinkeye Pea ships.

Need Help?
Questions about Top Pick Pinkeye Pea, sizing, or delivery? We're just an email away.

Live Shipping Estimates:
Enter your location at checkout to see available shipping methods and costs for Top Pick Pinkeye Pea in your area.

Get Shipping Estimates

Country Zip/Postal Code

Exchange/Return Notes

We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy

This is the first book I have read on an investigation into the resurrection event of Jesus. I found Licona’s approach clear and easy to follow. His writing style is very structured which I found to be valuable since he this book is thorough and covers a lot of material. Each chapter Licona begins with a brief outline of what he will cover and then he summarizes his main points at the end as well. Structuring the book this way was very helpful in following Licona’s reasoning and method from beginning to end. Licona begins by laying out his approach to historical inquiry. As someone who is not a historian and unfamiliar with the specifics of how historians approach their work, I found this section very useful in setting the stage for Licona’s investigation. For example, Licona has a section on “horizons,” which he defines as our “preunderstanding.” Essentially, horizons are our own perspectives based on our personal experiences and various influences such as culture, race, political, and religious experiences, that shape how we form our judgments and what we might choose to be an acceptable claim about reality. For example, whether miracles are possible. The goal is to mitigate horizons as much as possible and look at what the evidence has to say on its own. Since the goal of the book is to arrive at a conclusion pertaining to whether Jesus rose from the dead it is important to define what is meant by “best explanation” when we weigh competing hypotheses. Licona devotes a section to set criteria for a best explanation candidate. He establishes five criteria; explanatory scope, explanatory power, plausibility, less ad hoc, and illumination. Licona utilizes this criterion in the final chapter to weigh competing hypotheses. Furthermore, the critical insight that Licona focuses on is what he refers to as the “historical bedrock.” According to Licona, the historical bedrock includes three facts that are virtually undisputed by historians. Licona states his two criteria for the facts as strongly evidenced and those which contemporary scholars unanimously regard as historical facts. He navigates through various historical details surrounding the resurrection of Jesus and narrows down to three bedrock facts; Jesus died by crucifixion, shortly after Jesus’ death his disciples had experiences that led them to believe and proclaim Jesus was resurrected and appeared to them, and Paul’s conversion after experiencing a postresurrection appearance of Jesus within a few years after the crucifixion. Licona claims that the vast majority of scholars grant these facts as historical. With the bedrock laid, now one can weigh competing hypotheses against the bedrock itself to determine which explanation the best accounts for all three facts. As one weighs any available hypotheses against the bedrock facts, the idea is that one can minimize biases and infer the best explanation as to what happened to Jesus in the first century. Ultimately, Licona concludes that the best explanation is the resurrection of Jesus as claimed by Christianity. His conclusion comes after a thorough examination of six common explanations (including the resurrection hypothesis) and showing how each fails to explain at least one of the three facts except for the resurrection hypothesis. He spends a good deal of time interacting with scholarly work on different explanations. Licona concludes that the resurrection hypothesis best accounts for the three bedrock facts as well as fulfills all five criteria for a best explanation. Overall, I thought Licona’s method is thorough and rigorous, ultimately showing that the resurrection hypothesis cannot simply be dismissed. I also found Licona to be very candid. At the end of the book he admits that he was surprised at the “very certain” level which he awards the resurrection hypothesis after applying his method. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in learning what can be determined about the fate of Jesus from a historical approach.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on October 17, 2019

Verified Purchase

Chris Slayton

Belleville, US

★★★★★ 5

Excellent book on the historicity of the resurrection!

Format: Paperback

There are many books devoted to the resurrection of Jesus. Licona’s book is unique in that it takes “a new historiographical approach” to the resurrection by applying the principles of secular historical analysis to the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead. In applying the historical method, Licona seeks to understand the objective truth about what happened regardless of his subjective Christian beliefs on the matter. In fact, Licona readily admits his personal bias – or “horizon” – and his desire to see the historicity of the resurrection confirmed. However, as he points out, all historians have a “horizon” of some sort, and in his research and analysis, Licona is careful – some would say too careful perhaps – to set aside his “horizon” in order to objectively consider the evidence. Licona considers a variety of historical sources pertaining to the resurrection, both biblical and extra-biblical, weighing each source on a spectrum of historicity – from “certainly not historical” to “certainly historical.” Licona seeks to find the best explanation for the evidence according to five criteria: plausibility, explanatory scope, explanatory power, less ad hoc, and illumination. After examining the evidence, Licona concludes that there are three virtually undisputed facts that he calls “historical bedrock:” (1) Jesus died by crucifixion; (2) Jesus’ disciples had experiences that led them to believe that he had been resurrected; and (3) Paul converted after experiencing what he interpreted as a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus. Licona then weighs five naturalistic hypotheses for the resurrection, demonstrating how each of these views falls short of providing the best explanation for the historical bedrock. Licona ultimately concludes that the resurrection is the only hypothesis that meets all five criteria. In other words, Jesus’ resurrection from the dead provides the best explanation of the historical bedrock, and the historian is warranted in regarding Jesus’ resurrection as an actual historical event. Licona’s historiographical approach to the resurrection produces a very strong case for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I particularly appreciated Licona’s treatment of “horizon.” Licona is transparent about his Christian beliefs, but he demonstrates a willingness to go where the evidence leads and bent over backwards to remain objective. For example, Licona does not include the empty tomb as part of the historical bedrock since many scholars dispute the empty tomb. Some would take exception to this, but I believe it actually strengthens the case for the resurrection and leaves the skeptic with very little to argue. In other words, Licona is able to make a convincing case for the resurrection without considering what many Christians consider the best evidence – the empty tomb! I found the book very helpful, but keep in mind it is an academic work, and at over 600 pages, it is not necessarily an easy read. That being said, Licona’s book is outstanding and is a “must-read” for anyone seeking to understand the historical evidence for the resurrection or seeking to counter skeptical arguments against it. This is a great book to add to your library.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on November 19, 2021

Verified Purchase

Jamie N.Campbell

Port Orchard, US

★★★★★ 5

A fresh historical perspective to the Resurrection! -by Jamie D.

Format: Paperback

Although there have been countless books written about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from a theological perspective, few have successfully tackled the Resurrection from the historical perspective. Dr. Licona has successfully done just that, applying a historical methodology to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. In his opening chapter, Dr. Licona begins by defining what is meant by history, the methods that one employs to study history as well as the limitations that comes when one studies history. It is here that he introduces useful terms to the readers that are re-introduce in subsequent chapter. Horizon, a synonym for bias, can play a critical role in how one perceives and presents history to others. To reduce horizon, Dr. Licona believes that there are six main principles that can help an historian maintain a more objective perspective when reporting history. One of these main principles is that of “historical bedrock” a consensus of what is majorly accepted and infrequently debated. Not only is a consensus important when one considers a hypothesis but a hypothesis that has a solid explanation is important as well. For a hypothesis to have the weight of believability, it must stand up to five different criteria as well. In chapter 2, Dr. Licona then turns his attention to the subject of miracles and their role in history and successfully debunks the most common presuppositions cited by the world’s most famous skeptics against the historicity of miracles. It is in chapter 3 that Dr. Licona employs the historical method to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by examining both biblical and extrabiblical writings spanning within 200 years of the event. Upon the review of these various writings, he assigns a rating from “unlikely, possible-minus, possible, possible-plus, highly probably, indeterminate and not useful” to determine if they contain any historical weight in its regard to the independent testimony of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The historical bedrock principle is re-introduced into chapter 4 and is applied not only to the death of Jesus Christ but to His life as well. Dr. Licona notes that there many aspects of the Jesus’ life and death that are considered historical bedrock even among those with varied agendas. Dr. Licona concludes his book by examining some of the leading naturalistic hypotheses touted from the most prominent liberal and skeptics in this field. By employing the five criteria that gives the historian the most successful explanation, Licona concludes that it is not the naturalistic hypothesis which fits regarding the Resurrection, but the supernatural one. The supernatural hypothesis of the Resurrection is the most solid explanation since it fulfills both historical bedrock as well as meeting all five criteria for the best explanation and thus should be considered by any credible historian as a well attested event that occurred in the past. In summary, I highly recommend this book. As a believer of 40+ years, I learned things about my faith that I did not know about before. For example, I learned how the kerygma, an early Christian creed, lends historical weight to the Resurrection. My advice for believers is not to be intimidated by the voluminous size of this book. It was certainly well worth the read. Dr. Licona has done an excellent job in presenting the material through the perspective of a historian, so much so that one may temporarily forget that he is a theologian as well! Despite the myriad of footnotes peppered through the pages, the book was very easy to read and digest. In short, a must read for those who want to have a better understanding in how to engage skeptics from a different perspective when discussing the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Get it! You’ll feel that much smarter and grounded in the faith once you’ve read the last page!

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on December 5, 2021

Verified Purchase

John Keller

Houston, US

★★★★★ 5

Don’t be intimidated...it's detailed, but systematic and rational

Format: Paperback

Don’t be intimidated by this 700-page tome. Once you factor in the bibliography, index and footnotes, the body of the work is only about 400 pages. Licona includes an all-important, detailed outline for quick reference back to key topics, and it’s valuable because of the variety of issues he tackles. I’d say, he does a wonderful job of giving us an objective, systematic approach to addressing the historicity of the events following Jesus’ crucifixion. Licona lays the groundwork for his examination of the issue by considering the philosophy of history and tackling things like what is truth, what makes something a historical fact, who has the burden of proof, and is history a science? As a needed addition to this philosophical introduction, he spends time outlining the methods he will use to approaching relevant texts, claims of miracles, and consensus facts. Most important, I think, to his methods was his self-examination of potential bias due to personal belief and worldview. He addresses what he calls a personal “horizon” that historians must be set aside in order to be objective and get at the truth. He certainly points it out in others along the way and makes it clear throughout the book that he is trying to identify and eliminate any potential bias he may bring to the process. In his investigation, he addresses the most important sources related to Jesus’ life, crucifixion and claims of the resurrection. He deals with both Christian and non-Christian sources that were written immediately following the events as well as within the following 200 years. Licona makes the case for authenticity and credibility of the most important sources, and where there have been challenges to these sources over the centuries, he addresses those challenges head on. Ultimately, he boils the events, claims, facts and sources down to what he calls the “bedrock” pertaining to the fate of Jesus. This bedrock consists of three facts that are well supported by authentic, textual evidence which enjoy nearly consensus support by all historians (both Christian and non-Christian). For Licona, the bedrock which need be answered are (1) Jesus’ death by crucifixion, (2) the claims Jesus appeared to individuals and groups following his burial, and (3) the conversion of the Church persecutor, Paul. Ultimately, Licona breaks down six different hypotheses which claim to explain the bedrock and he uses systematic criteria for weighing those hypotheses. He concludes that a resurrection is the best explanation but admits that it’s only by setting aside a naturalistic worldview that one can embrace the conclusion. I like Licona’s methodical approach but would offer two critiques. Do we really need all the Greek citations written out? I understand that there is nuance and variations in meaning for words that are used in the original sources, but to give us all the text and the translation seemed superfluous. Second, I think it was a cop-out to skim the importance of the empty tomb. Other historians put the fact of the empty tomb as one of their top facts to be explained, but Licona punted on it because he didn’t feel it received universal consensus. Consensus aside, the fact of the empty tomb does receive support by a strong majority of scholars, even ones that do not support the resurrection. This cross-section of scholarly support, along with the volume and type of textural evidence, namely the confirmation by Christian enemies, should have elevated the fact of the empty tomb to the “bedrock” which require explanation.

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on April 12, 2021

Verified Purchase

Elly

Lowell, US

★★★★★ 5

so helpful

Format: Paperback

got for school and used it a lot its been so helpful

WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare

Reviewed in the United States on February 3, 2026