Cold-Case Christianity

[LadyForCamus]

Has anyone read this book by J. Warner Wallace?  I have a former HS friend turned religious fundie who is hell bent on converting me, and in the interest of a fair debate I told him I’d read it. I’m expecting the usual apologetics rundown of lowering the standards for evidence so we can include alleged eyewitness testimony, but I was just curious if anyone here had suffered through it so I can prepare myself for the pain. Thanks, loves! ❤️

[Silver]

Christian Apologetics is in the title of the official website.

They call him the evidence whisperer, but how can that be when also owning the apologetic title?

[The Valkyrie]

Nope.

I wouldn't bother. Especially not with apologetics propaganda.

If something requires apologetics then that something us fundamentally flawed.

[The Grand Nudger]

[arewethereyet]

I haven't read that one but just looked through the reviews on Amazon...overwhelmingly lauded as a great apologetics book. sigh

Supposedly the author has some special insight as he was/is a homicide detective which matters because....I got nuthin'.

Even as a true crime junkie, the concept of this bores me.

I can't recall the name of the book but an old friend who went all fundie sent one to me to read. I slogged through it and as you can tell it left no impression on me since I can't remember anything about it other than he sent me a book and I read it. Funny how the thought is there that if you just read this book - you will see the light. Seems to me that book would be The Bible, but apparently not.

Have fun with that.

[Fake Messiah]

Maybe you could rather invite that person here to discuss which evidences he/ she finds compelling.
Because perhaps texting is better suited for these kind of discussions since someone brings up some claim and some quotation and people can check the full context and similar things.

And if we're going to use film clips I think this is most appropriate

[LadyForCamus]

Ugh, this is going to be painful, lol

[Fireball]

Ugh, this is going to be painful, lol

Maybe there's a Cliff Notes for it?

[Fake Messiah]

Ugh, this is going to be painful, lol

It's going to be painful because the book is boring and filled with cop stories while actual claims are scarce. The main premise of the book seems to be that this guy, Jim Warner Wallace, believes that NT is historical and whole book is his drivel that because he is a cop he has more advanced authority over historian and Bible scholars on these matters because he is also stupid enough to believe in miracles. Book seems to have a lot, and I do mean lot, of cop stories but here are some of his claims:

He characterized Jesus as a really smart guy who had some remarkably wise things to say about life, family, relationships, and work. I began to believe that this might be true.

Nope. Jesus was a very dumb guy who yelled at trees, believed that spit can cure people, that people should not do agriculture but live as birds etc; and he was anti family.

Within a month, and in spite of my deep skepticism and hesitation, I concluded that Mark’s gospel was the eyewitness account of the apostle Peter.

Let's face it all scholars don't consider Gospels to be eyewitness accounts and we had many discussions about that. Although some think that there was a historical Jesus they also consider that almost all stories in Gospels are fiction. But Jim seems to be aware that scholars don't consider Gospels to be history since he says:

many of these same historians simultaneously reject the historicity of any of the miracles described in the New Testament, in spite of the fact that these miracles are described alongside the events that scholars accept as historical.

What "alongside events" historians accept to be historical? Slaughter of the innocents? - Not! Rock breaking earthquakes? - NOT! Six hour global darkness? - NOT!

Even when a particular phenomenon cannot be explained by any natural, material process or set of forces, the vast majority of scientists will refuse to consider a supernatural explanation.

*DUH*

You see when someone makes so many false claims in just forward and first chapter it is pointless to read more. Wouldn't you agree? But OK let's do some more of his claims

As a skeptic myself, I formed a list of New Testament claims as I first investigated the resurrection. When I was an unbeliever, I found four of Habermas and Licona’s minimal facts to be the most substantiated by

1. Jesus died on the cross and was buried.
2. Jesus’s tomb was empty and no one ever produced His body.
3. Jesus’s disciples believed that they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead.
4. Jesus’s disciples were transformed following their alleged resurrection observations.

1. people that died on cross were never buried
2 & 3 actually "Mark" doesn't claim that disciples believed that they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead. "Mark" ends with women seeing the empty tomb and then he "Mark" tells us that he resurrected. The rest of the Gospel was added later. Not to mention that later gospels differ completely about who saw what at the tomb.

So let's really look at this as judge and jury. If you were the judge presiding over a murder case, you would want to be absolutely certain before convicting the defendant. If the prosecutor calls his key witnesses, but each tells a different story, his case would be very shaky. The defense attorney will argue for the acquittal of his client by demonstrating the weakness of the prosecutor's case. He will impeach the state's witnesses by showing how their accounts are contradictory.

Does Mary wish to tell disciples what happened? Matthew YES; Mark: No.

To whom does Jesus make first appearance and where? Matt. To two martyrs on the way to Jerusalem. Mark: Only Mary Magdalene, but place is not specific. Luke: Cleopas and another at Emmaus. John: Only Mary Magdalene at the tomb.

Who carried the cross? Matthew: Simon. John: Only Jesus

Time and date of the crucifixion? Matthew: Time not specified, first day of Passover. Mark: 9.00 am, first day of Passover. John: 12.00 noon, the day before the Passover.

How many people came to the tomb and who were they? Matt.: Two. Mary Magdalene and other Mary. Mark: Three. Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James and Salome. Luke: Four+. Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna and other women. John: One. Only Mary Magdalene.

Was the stone removed when the women came to the tomb? Matt. No. When women came angel rolled the stone. Mark: Yes. Stone was already removed. Luke: Yes.

How many angels were at the tomb and what were they doing? Matt.: One angel sitting on the stone he removed. Mark: One young man sitting in the tomb. Luke: Two men standing inside of the tomb. John: No angels at the first visit. But when she comes second time there are two angels sitting; one at the head and one at the feet.


And so on and on. So to treat Gospels as some sort of witness testimony is more than ridiculous, it's idiotic. So this guy must have been one of the worst cops ever or he is just bullshitting around to make money on gullible Christians.

[Alan V]

Here's a review from Amazon which in one paragraph destroys the credibility of the book, so I suspect the author was just cashing in:

JVib
1.0 out of 5 stars
This case would fail in a court of law
January 28, 2019
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
Wallace starts off with stories of being a homicide detective and begins his narrative of moving from “belief in that” to “belief in”. He was known by his friends as an angry Atheist. I really despise how often Christian apologists use this strawman. It tends to lead Christians to believe that atheist don’t believe because they are “angry” about something (daddy issues, hurt by the church, are just rejecting god because they don’t like authority, they just want to sin, etc.). In reality the majority of atheists don’t believe the claim (made by other human beings) that a god exists due to lack of evidence to support that claim. Wallace goes on about how often he has interviewed eyewitnesses and suspects and how he understands how testimony is evaluated in a court of law. Then he states that he used his skills as an investigator to determine that the book of Mark was actually an eyewitness account of the apostle Peter. WOW! This is a bold and absolutely ridiculous claim right from the start! We have NO original manuscripts of the book of Mark & we have no evidence to determine who wrote the original text. Also the book of Mark has been copied and translated by many people since it was originally written. This renders the book of Mark (and the entire bible) hearsay in a court of law. Unfounded, unverifiable claims. The books of the bible cannot be considered to be eyewitness testimony and no court of law would ever accept them as testimony. The bible would be inadmissible.