The Believers Eternal Fight for "Validation"

[Randy Carson]

It's not a straw man.  It's the only way belief in the unprovable can happen.  That's why religions don't encourage snooping around evidence, logic, and critical thinking.  Those who would go there, will find nothing to support what they seek.  Blind faith is the only way to believe in the unknowable, and it's even encouraged by most religions lest people become too adept at critical thinking and fall from the grace that only their church can provide.

Yet for some, such as yourself, it's still a bit unsettling to swallow the absurdities of doctrine on blind faith alone.  You need a little more than that, so you look for evidence, even when you don't need to.  To believe you have actually found evidence gives you a sense of closure.  You believe you are no longer a robot believing whatever you are told, but that you have found the answer outside of yourself independently.  You believe you have found inscrutable evidence that would convince everyone, even the most ardent skeptics, if they would but open their hearts and accept Jesus Christ as their savior. 

Even if it fails the peer review of a forum of skeptics, you know that you are right, because your god wants you to know he exists, and surely he would leave foot prints for everyone to see.  Sleep well my friend, and dream of gardens with waterfalls with pixies hiding among the flowers.  It actually sounds rather nice to me too.

Christianity is based upon a historical event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Christian Faith Is An Evidential Faith
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/the-christian-faith-is-an-evidential-faith/

Sometimes Christians have a mistaken definition of “faith”. Because faith is sometimes described as believing in things that cannot be seen, Christians often think of faith as an act of believing in things that have no evidential basis. In essence, some Christians believe that “true faith” is believing in something in spite of the evidence or believing in something when there is no evidence to support the belief in the first place!

But this is not the Biblical definition of faith. While it is true that God is a Spirit and cannot be seen, it is not true that there is no evidence to support the existence of the unseen God. While we may not see anyone throw a rock in a pond, we may indeed see the ripples that the rock created on the surface of the water and come to the belief that someone threw a rock into the pond on the basis of this evidence. In a similar way, there are many good reasons to believe that God exists, and the Biblical model of true faith involves examining the evidence for God’s existence. Let’s examine the Biblical model of evidential faith:

Christians Are Called to Use Their Minds
God tells us that we are to love Him with more than our heart. We are to have a relationship that is emotional and intellectual (Matthew 22:37-38).

Christians Are Called to Understand the Value of Evidence
God has given us a number of good evidential reasons to believe that He exists and that Jesus is who He says He is. We are not called to have blind faith, but to have a well reasoned, evidential faith (Acts 1:2-3, Acts 17:2-3, Acts 17:30-31).

Christians Are Called to Examine Their Beliefs
God wants us to know what we believe and why we believe it. We’re not called to numbly trust everything that might be taught in our world today, even if some Christian teacher is the source! We’re expected to be critical, skeptical and thoughtful (Acts 17:10-11, 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, 1 John 4:1)

Christians Are Called to be Convinced of What They Believe
God wants us to be certain and base our certainty on evidence that can be articulated to others who may have doubts (Romans 14:5, 2 Timothy 1:8-12, 2 Timothy 3:14).

Christians Are Called to be “Case Makers”
Once we have examined the evidence and have come to the conclusion that Christianity is true, we are called to be ready to make a strong defense for what we believe (1 Peter 3:15).

The Christian life is a rational and reasonable life that is rooted and grounded in the evidence of the Resurrection and the truth of the Bible. Christians are saved by placing their trust in Jesus, but Christians become a powerful force in their world when they commit themselves to being “case makers” for what they believe. Christians can be “case makers” precisely because the Christian faith is an evidential faith. When we, as Christians, argue for the truth of the Christian Worldview, we are not sharing an opinion. There either is a God, or there is not. Jesus is that God, or He is not. Salvation comes through Christ alone (as Jesus Himself maintained), or it does not. This is not a matter of opinion, personal preference or wishful thinking. The Christian faith is grounded in evidence that can be assessed and evaluated. The Christian faith is an evidential faith.

[21CIconoclast]

Christianity is based upon a historical event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Christian Faith Is An Evidential Faith
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/the-christian-faith-is-an-evidential-faith/

Sometimes Christians have a mistaken definition of “faith”. Because faith is sometimes described as believing in things that cannot be seen, Christians often think of faith as an act of believing in things that have no evidential basis. In essence, some Christians believe that “true faith” is believing in something in spite of the evidence or believing in something when there is no evidence to support the belief in the first place!

But this is not the Biblical definition of faith. While it is true that God is a Spirit and cannot be seen, it is not true that there is no evidence to support the existence of the unseen God. While we may not see anyone throw a rock in a pond, we may indeed see the ripples that the rock created on the surface of the water and come to the belief that someone threw a rock into the pond on the basis of this evidence. In a similar way, there are many good reasons to believe that God exists, and the Biblical model of true faith involves examining the evidence for God’s existence. Let’s examine the Biblical model of evidential faith:

Christians Are Called to Use Their Minds
God tells us that we are to love Him with more than our heart. We are to have a relationship that is emotional and intellectual (Matthew 22:37-38).

Christians Are Called to Understand the Value of Evidence
God has given us a number of good evidential reasons to believe that He exists and that Jesus is who He says He is. We are not called to have blind faith, but to have a well reasoned, evidential faith (Acts 1:2-3, Acts 17:2-3, Acts 17:30-31).

Christians Are Called to Examine Their Beliefs
God wants us to know what we believe and why we believe it. We’re not called to numbly trust everything that might be taught in our world today, even if some Christian teacher is the source! We’re expected to be critical, skeptical and thoughtful (Acts 17:10-11, 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, 1 John 4:1)

Christians Are Called to be Convinced of What They Believe
God wants us to be certain and base our certainty on evidence that can be articulated to others who may have doubts (Romans 14:5, 2 Timothy 1:8-12, 2 Timothy 3:14).

Christians Are Called to be “Case Makers”
Once we have examined the evidence and have come to the conclusion that Christianity is true, we are called to be ready to make a strong defense for what we believe (1 Peter 3:15).

The Christian life is a rational and reasonable life that is rooted and grounded in the evidence of the Resurrection and the truth of the Bible. Christians are saved by placing their trust in Jesus, but Christians become a powerful force in their world when they commit themselves to being “case makers” for what they believe. Christians can be “case makers” precisely because the Christian faith is an evidential faith. When we, as Christians, argue for the truth of the Christian Worldview, we are not sharing an opinion. There either is a God, or there is not. Jesus is that God, or He is not. Salvation comes through Christ alone (as Jesus Himself maintained), or it does not. This is not a matter of opinion, personal preference or wishful thinking. The Christian faith is grounded in evidence that can be assessed and evaluated. The Christian faith is an evidential faith.

Randy, seriously, how can you show your presence within this forum subsequent to your RUNNING AWAY many times from my postings to you that make you the IGNORANT fool regarding your primitive Christianity?  I have lost count of the times where I've easily accomplished this act. If need be, I will copy them to show you, even though that would add more egg upon your face, okay?

Like I've told your equally dumbfounded "popsthebuilder", you two are a dime-a-dozen pseudo-christians that know deep down that when you cannot defend your faith, YOU BECOME SILENT, which proves that you're embarrassed about your bible and at the same time, you still believe in it!  LOL

What a continuing embarrassing position you two place yourselves in for believing in a Bronze and Iron Age belief system that is meant to be left in the past where it belongs. You will ALWAYS be made the fool when staying in this forum, as I see you're getting used to it!

NOW, TO PROVE MY POINT HEREIN, REMAIN SILENT UPON THIS POST TO YOU LIKE YOU HAVE DONE WITH OTHER EXAMPLES OF YOUR WEAKNESS BY REMAINING SILENT IN DEFENDING YOUR FAITH!

[SGOS]

it is not true that there is no evidence to support the existence of the unseen God.
God has given us a number of good evidential reasons to believe that He exists and that Jesus is who He says He is.
God wants us to be certain and base our certainty on evidence
The Christian life is a rational and reasonable life that is rooted and grounded in the evidence of the Resurrection
Christians can be “case makers” precisely because the Christian faith is an evidential faith.
This is not a matter of opinion, personal preference or wishful thinking. The Christian faith is grounded in evidence
The Christian faith is an evidential faith.

I acquiesce then.  It must be true since you said it 7 times.
Randy, you the Man!

[marom1963]

Randy, seriously, how can you show your presence within this forum subsequent to your RUNNING AWAY many times from my postings to you that make you the IGNORANT fool regarding your primitive Christianity?  I have lost count of the times where I've easily accomplished this act. If need be, I will copy them to show you, even though that would add more egg upon your face, okay?

Like I've told your equally dumbfounded "popsthebuilder", you two are a dime-a-dozen pseudo-christians that know deep down that when you cannot defend your faith, YOU BECOME SILENT, which proves that you're embarrassed about your bible and at the same time, you still believe in it!  LOL

What a continuing embarrassing position you two place yourselves in for believing in a Bronze and Iron Age belief system that is meant to be left in the past where it belongs. You will ALWAYS be made the fool when staying in this forum, as I see you're getting used to it!

NOW, TO PROVE MY POINT HEREIN, REMAIN SILENT UPON THIS POST TO YOU LIKE YOU HAVE DONE WITH OTHER EXAMPLES OF YOUR WEAKNESS BY REMAINING SILENT IN DEFENDING YOUR FAITH!

Shouting at them won't help. They're deaf.

[Randy Carson]

I acquiesce then.  It must be true since you said it 7 times.
Randy, you the Man!

You wrote, "Yet for some, such as yourself, it's still a bit unsettling to swallow the absurdities of doctrine on blind faith alone"

Now, you HAVE been shown why the atheist claim that believers operate on "blind faith" is a canard.

You're smarter than this, so why cling to what is so easily shown to be false? It simply weakens your position.

[marom1963]

You wrote, "Yet for some, such as yourself, it's still a bit unsettling to swallow the absurdities of doctrine on blind faith alone"

Now, you HAVE been shown why the atheist claim that believers operate on "blind faith" is a canard.

You're smarter than this, so why cling to what is so easily shown to be false? It simply weakens your position.

Can you say - THREE CARD MONTY?

[SGOS]

You wrote, "Yet for some, such as yourself, it's still a bit unsettling to swallow the absurdities of doctrine on blind faith alone"

Now, you HAVE been shown why the atheist claim that believers operate on "blind faith" is a canard.

Right then, so I'll go with "blind faith, logical fallacies, and denial."  Does that help?

[Randy Carson]

Right then, so I'll go with "blind faith, logical fallacies, and denial."  Does that help?

I'd feel much better. Thanks.

[aitm]

Oh. So, on the basis of some reading of various books, you have arrived at the certainty that God does not exist?

1. I don't understand this book.
2. Therefore, God does not exist.

I understand the book very well. It is full of lies and bullshit and plain crazy ass stupidity. Therefore the god it promotes is just as much bullshit. You know sometimes the answer is pretty obvious, but you can't admit it because you were taught not to question it. You are a babble twit. In order to believe, you must suspend your intellect and willingly accept all the lies, and you do and cherry pick and ignore the rest and openly mock your god by failing to follow his rules. Good for you. Big whoop.

[stromboli]

Christianity is based upon a historical event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The Christian Faith Is An Evidential Faith
http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/the-christian-faith-is-an-evidential-faith/

Sometimes Christians have a mistaken definition of “faith”. Because faith is sometimes described as believing in things that cannot be seen, Christians often think of faith as an act of believing in things that have no evidential basis. In essence, some Christians believe that “true faith” is believing in something in spite of the evidence or believing in something when there is no evidence to support the belief in the first place!

But this is not the Biblical definition of faith. While it is true that God is a Spirit and cannot be seen, it is not true that there is no evidence to support the existence of the unseen God. While we may not see anyone throw a rock in a pond, we may indeed see the ripples that the rock created on the surface of the water and come to the belief that someone threw a rock into the pond on the basis of this evidence. In a similar way, there are many good reasons to believe that God exists, and the Biblical model of true faith involves examining the evidence for God’s existence. Let’s examine the Biblical model of evidential faith:

Christians Are Called to Use Their Minds
God tells us that we are to love Him with more than our heart. We are to have a relationship that is emotional and intellectual (Matthew 22:37-38).

Christians Are Called to Understand the Value of Evidence
God has given us a number of good evidential reasons to believe that He exists and that Jesus is who He says He is. We are not called to have blind faith, but to have a well reasoned, evidential faith (Acts 1:2-3, Acts 17:2-3, Acts 17:30-31).

Christians Are Called to Examine Their Beliefs
God wants us to know what we believe and why we believe it. We’re not called to numbly trust everything that might be taught in our world today, even if some Christian teacher is the source! We’re expected to be critical, skeptical and thoughtful (Acts 17:10-11, 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, 1 John 4:1)

Christians Are Called to be Convinced of What They Believe
God wants us to be certain and base our certainty on evidence that can be articulated to others who may have doubts (Romans 14:5, 2 Timothy 1:8-12, 2 Timothy 3:14).

Christians Are Called to be “Case Makers”
Once we have examined the evidence and have come to the conclusion that Christianity is true, we are called to be ready to make a strong defense for what we believe (1 Peter 3:15).

The Christian life is a rational and reasonable life that is rooted and grounded in the evidence of the Resurrection and the truth of the Bible. Christians are saved by placing their trust in Jesus, but Christians become a powerful force in their world when they commit themselves to being “case makers” for what they believe. Christians can be “case makers” precisely because the Christian faith is an evidential faith. When we, as Christians, argue for the truth of the Christian Worldview, we are not sharing an opinion. There either is a God, or there is not. Jesus is that God, or He is not. Salvation comes through Christ alone (as Jesus Himself maintained), or it does not. This is not a matter of opinion, personal preference or wishful thinking. The Christian faith is grounded in evidence that can be assessed and evaluated. The Christian faith is an evidential faith.

Cold Case Christianity?

A critique of Jim Warner Wallace's Cold Case Christianity

I left Christianity after 40 years as a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. Few, if any, of my former friends and my family can even speak to me civilly anymore. One such former friend asked if he could send me a book that might change my mind about my “convictions”. I graciously accepted the offer (challenge). I have yet to respond to him as of this writing.

The book is “Cold Case Christianity”, written by a former detective by the name of Jim Warner Wallace who was a practicing Atheist. He uses his experience as a cold-case, homicide detective to make a case for the reliability of the New Testament record of the life of Jesus.

More importantly, Wallace uses his tactics to promote belief in the supernatural life that comes as a result of accepting Jesus and the Biblical witness. It is simply a new angle on the same evangelistic plea used for centuries on unbelievers.

But in this age of easily, accessible information, the method is much more effective. It relies, not solely on emotion and guilt, as was once the case, but uses intellect and “evidence” to convince the doubter that what the believer says has merit.

The genius of it is the constant comparisons Wallace makes to his cases from police files. He masterfully weaves his methods of investigation into the stories of how the New Testament came to us through history. But he leaves a few stones unturned, or fills-in the gaps without explanation. His videos are an easier method of seeing the problems with his arguments.

I'll begin with his use of dating the documents from which we supposedly get our modern English Bibles. If we take the dates he gives for the writing of the Gospels, Acts, and some of Paul's letters, we still have a 20 year gap in the time-line that he shows as evidence for the early record of the life of Jesus.

I thought about the conundrum- a lot happens in 20 years; I got married after dropping out of college, had seven children, moved several times, had at least a half-dozen jobs, and of course changed churches at least three times! Both of my sisters-in-law got divorced, and one of them remarried. I could add much more.

And that's just the big stuff! Now... could I go back and give a detailed description of those times? Now, what about the three years prior to that time (my college days)? Could I do an admirable job of rehearsing what my mentor did and said, from memory, for three years, in exact detail? But we are talking about the “Word of God” (inspired as the writers themselves say). Amazingly enough, Wallace claims that God's Word need not be expected to be accurate or detailed!

Wallace uses the example of his “eyewitnesses”, whom he claims never intended to corroborate each other completely, to show that we have to piece together the evidence to make this case. He seems to forget that we do not have eyewitnesses, nor do we have signed statements or “officers” who can show a “chain of custody” of said testimonies. There is conveniently no opportunity to cross-examine our witnesses.

And it is that initial gap in the chain of custody that is so crucial to the case. He cannot show the origin of the stories of his witnesses, and therefore “fills-in” the gap to make it look like an unbroken chain.

Wallace also uses Paul and Luke (two men who were clearly NOT eye-witnesses) as the best examples of reliable manuscripts. He cites Luke's claim that he had taken upon himself to set forth an orderly account of the events of the life of Jesus, both in his Gospel and the Acts Of The Apostles. We must remember that none of the Gospels named their authors, and all of them were supposedly accurate accounts of Jesus.

This is the kind of collaboration that Wallace decries from his cold-case days, yet he glorifies it in the defense of the gospel record. Furthermore, Wallace goes to great length to depict the writers as honest men, yet shows no evidence why we should accept this. For all we know, they were men of the lowest class with everything to gain from this ruse.

This is just his point; the apostles had nothing to gain and therefore the only motive possible was to accurately report the truth (and the efficacy of belief for eternal life). But he again fails to tell the whole story, since men and women have always died for whatever they choose to believe, right or wrong, good or bad. Belief is no more virtuous than the people who hold it.

Wallace also fails to recognize that the surviving Gospels (those approved at last by the Councils) were not the only stories told from those days. Many churches and fringe (cultic) groups held slightly different beliefs based on a myriad of “Gospels” that all claimed to tell the story of Jesus. The fact that 27 books were combined with 39 from before Christ only attest to the power of the Roman Church, and those who hijacked the faith from the Jews. It is quite telling that “God's Chosen People” did not so readily accept the story.

He never even addresses the problem that only three gospels tell the story in at least similar detail, while a fourth is quite different, and hundreds disagree completely! And the Jews rejected it out of hand.

There is one last problem I must expose, and I wonder if it will be misunderstood. Wallace must be covering the fact that he really accepted all of this based on emotion (faith) and not strictly on “the evidence” as he suggests. I also wonder if he only ever saw the virtue of the evidence that points to acceptance of the story.

It is the same old story, I used it many times myself from the pulpit. It is necessary to appeal to the fear and guilt in the audience because faith has to triumph over reason. There is no other way to skip the rules of evidence and come to this decision. In a court of law, none of this stands the test.

You see, there is no case here. There is actually so little evidence as to make it laughable, if the problem were not so serious. Wallace is just another example of a man who was seeking for answers and found what he was looking for- a reason to believe in something greater than himself. Wallace asked all the wrong questions, and ignored his own rules to find what he needed.

He even uses historical evidence that has either been debunked or doesn't say what he wants it to say in relation to the events of the first century. The Gospels, in fact, make several historical errors, but the author finds a way to use them to his advantage, making his case on false premises.

It is this kind of ignorance that is so dishonest, while keeping the myth of Christ intact. Christians (and I used to be one of them) will accept whatever they are told as gospel truth, so long as it bolsters their arguments and their faith. It is one reason I no longer believe the Bible. If nothing else, God is true; the Bible doesn't hold up under the rule of law.

This is comical. Ex-atheist apologist trashed by ex-Christian pastor turned atheist.

As I've said before, the bible is demonstrably a work of fiction. You fallaciously use it as a source of validation.  Oh right, validation. That is the topic. Eternal fight for thereof. 

[Randy Carson]

Cold Case Christianity?

Sure. Let's got through the review...I'll be specific...something you have never done with any of my OP's.

But in this age of easily, accessible information, the method is much more effective. It relies, not solely on emotion and guilt, as was once the case, but uses intellect and “evidence” to convince the doubter that what the believer says has merit.

Here, the reviewer acknowledges that Wallace is using "intellect and 'evidence'". Damn. How did that sneak into a negative review?

I'll begin with his use of dating the documents from which we supposedly get our modern English Bibles. If we take the dates he gives for the writing of the Gospels, Acts, and some of Paul's letters, we still have a 20 year gap in the time-line that he shows as evidence for the early record of the life of Jesus.



20 years? Whoo-boy...most scholars of ancient Greco-Roman literature would die for sources that "fresh".

I thought about the conundrum- a lot happens in 20 years; I got married after dropping out of college, had seven children, moved several times, had at least a half-dozen jobs, and of course changed churches at least three times! Both of my sisters-in-law got divorced, and one of them remarried. I could add much more.

Interesting. The reviewer admits that he has no problem remembering the "big stuff" that happened 20 years ago. Does that mean that the apostles would have no trouble remembering the day that they found Jesus' empty tomb?

And that's just the big stuff! Now... could I go back and give a detailed description of those times? Now, what about the three years prior to that time (my college days)? Could I do an admirable job of rehearsing what my mentor did and said, from memory, for three years, in exact detail? But we are talking about the “Word of God” (inspired as the writers themselves say). Amazingly enough, Wallace claims that God's Word need not be expected to be accurate or detailed!

The reviewer overlooks the fact that the apostles didn't simply go back to fishing and tax collecting after the resurrection. Instead, they had been preaching the same, consistent message for those 20 years. Now, I don't know about you, Mr. Young, but if you've given the same speech a few dozen or a few hundred times, would that increase the likelihood that you would remember it verbatim?

Further, would the presence of living eyewitnesses who were also hearers of Jesus' various sermons and parables have been like guardrails on a highway keeping the narrative within a specific set of facts? Yeah, I think so, too.

Wallace uses the example of his “eyewitnesses”, whom he claims never intended to corroborate each other completely, to show that we have to piece together the evidence to make this case. He seems to forget that we do not have eyewitnesses, nor do we have signed statements or “officers” who can show a “chain of custody” of said testimonies. There is conveniently no opportunity to cross-examine our witnesses.

The latter sentence is true. And Wallace explains why this is PREFERABLE to having living eyewitnesses. Witnesses can perjure themselves, lie, be bought off or intimidated. Sworn statements do not change. Wallace is 30-0 in court obtaining convictions in cold case murders. UNDEFEATED. I think the man understands the value of indirect evidence. I think you don't.

Oh, and the reviewer must have missed the chapter on the chain of evidence which is provided by the Early Church Fathers: Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Papias...

And it is that initial gap in the chain of custody that is so crucial to the case. He cannot show the origin of the stories of his witnesses, and therefore “fills-in” the gap to make it look like an unbroken chain.

Well, so much for this review. Wallace covers this in depth. I can provide links to the material from his website upon your request.

Wallace also uses Paul and Luke (two men who were clearly NOT eye-witnesses) as the best examples of reliable manuscripts. He cites Luke's claim that he had taken upon himself to set forth an orderly account of the events of the life of Jesus, both in his Gospel and the Acts Of The Apostles. We must remember that none of the Gospels named their authors, and all of them were supposedly accurate accounts of Jesus.

This former believer must have forgotten that Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus. But perhaps he means during his early ministry. Even then, we cannot be sure that Paul was not listening (as a skeptic) to Jesus' preaching in the Temple where Paul was studying at the time. As for "Who Wrote the Gospels", I covered this in my own thread.

This is the kind of collaboration that Wallace decries from his cold-case days, yet he glorifies it in the defense of the gospel record. Furthermore, Wallace goes to great length to depict the writers as honest men, yet shows no evidence why we should accept this. For all we know, they were men of the lowest class with everything to gain from this ruse.

Two more errors from this reviewer. First, Wallace does talk about corroboration at length providing solid reasons to believe that the writers were credible. Second, Wallace also covers the topic of "motivation" as we might expect an experienced detective would.

Stromboli, it is obvious that the reviewer did not really read the book. He skimmed at best. I have read it cover to cover twice, given copies to others and I visit Wallace's website daily. I have heard Wallace speak in person and shaken his hand. I have also seen many of his presentations on YouTube. I feel fairly confident that I know Wallace's material well.

This is just his point; the apostles had nothing to gain and therefore the only motive possible was to accurately report the truth (and the efficacy of belief for eternal life). But he again fails to tell the whole story, since men and women have always died for whatever they choose to believe, right or wrong, good or bad. Belief is no more virtuous than the people who hold it.

Here, the reviewer makes a classic error. People will die for their beliefs. No one dies for what they know to be a lie. None of the apostles recanted. Because they did not merely believe; they KNEW. And no one could convince them to recant what they knew to be the truth.

Wallace also fails to recognize that the surviving Gospels (those approved at last by the Councils) were not the only stories told from those days. Many churches and fringe (cultic) groups held slightly different beliefs based on a myriad of “Gospels” that all claimed to tell the story of Jesus. The fact that 27 books were combined with 39 from before Christ only attest to the power of the Roman Church, and those who hijacked the faith from the Jews. It is quite telling that “God's Chosen People” did not so readily accept the story.

It's not so telling, Mr. Reviewer, but it is also not the subject of Wallace's book. And no, Wallace did not delve into the gnostic gospels because their existence is not relevant to the story. They were added to the crime scene later. They are artifacts, not evidence. Like the materials left at a crime scene by the paramedics who try to save a murder victim, they can be ignored.

He never even addresses the problem that only three gospels tell the story in at least similar detail, while a fourth is quite different, and hundreds disagree completely! And the Jews rejected it out of hand.

Again, the rejection of the Jews is irrelevant. And notice that the reviewer places "hundreds" of gospels on an equal footing. This is an error.

There is one last problem I must expose, and I wonder if it will be misunderstood. Wallace must be covering the fact that he really accepted all of this based on emotion (faith) and not strictly on “the evidence” as he suggests. I also wonder if he only ever saw the virtue of the evidence that points to acceptance of the story.

"Wallace "must be [hiding] the fact that he really accepted all of this based on emotion." Oh, really, Mr. Reviewer? What is your evidence for this assertion?

Stromboli, are you really taking this review seriously???

It is the same old story, I used it many times myself from the pulpit. It is necessary to appeal to the fear and guilt in the audience because faith has to triumph over reason. There is no other way to skip the rules of evidence and come to this decision. In a court of law, none of this stands the test.

Ah...and now we know why he simply assumes Wallace accepted Jesus on the basis of emotion. Because he manipulated people's emotions himself and therefore simply assumes that Wallace was gullible enough to have been manipulated in like manner.

This is pathetic.

You see, there is no case here. There is actually so little evidence as to make it laughable, if the problem were not so serious. Wallace is just another example of a man who was seeking for answers and found what he was looking for- a reason to believe in something greater than himself. Wallace asked all the wrong questions, and ignored his own rules to find what he needed.

Standard assertions. Nothing to see here. Move along, people.

He even uses historical evidence that has either been debunked or doesn't say what he wants it to say in relation to the events of the first century. The Gospels, in fact, make several historical errors, but the author finds a way to use them to his advantage, making his case on false premises.

Which the reviewer merely asserts and conveniently fails to present for our evaluation. Are you picking up on this, stomboli? You do it to.

It is this kind of ignorance that is so dishonest, while keeping the myth of Christ intact. Christians (and I used to be one of them) will accept whatever they are told as gospel truth, so long as it bolsters their arguments and their faith. It is one reason I no longer believe the Bible. If nothing else, God is true; the Bible doesn't hold up under the rule of law.

We will never know what happened to this poor soul's faith, but his review of Wallace's book is deeply flawed.

Stromboli, you've been on a bit of tear lately, cutting and pasting just about anything that says what you already believe, but your copy-pasta doesn't actually hold up under scrutiny. Maybe you should slow down...read some GOOD Catholic books...and then, if you are able, to devise some arguments or questions of your own about what you have read.

Simply drinking Kool-Aid from various Internet canteens is not helping you. AT ALL.

[Baruch]

Randy ... you are argumentative, and your god is whatever pagan god (or Catholic saint) is in charge of argumentation.  You got nothing except being tied up in your own casuistry.

[stromboli]

Another random review. See, here's the thing. A person making claims about religion is talking about something that has to be specifically true as it is presented in full. It can't be partly true. You can make claims of all sorts about validity, but your whole effort here has centered around the validity (there's that word again) of Jesus and the gospels and early writings, but frankly you haven't proven it.

And here's why; if anyone can debunk even the smallest part of your "specifically true as presented in full" religion, it calls into question the entirety of it. And there certainly has been a lot of cold water thrown on your gospel fire.

Another review trashes cold case christianity. Good enough for me.

I read this book based on a friends recommendation. However, it's filled with so many logical holes, unsupported opinions, and poorly represented science that it's hard to take seriously. I urge serious truth-seekers to look elsewhere.

I will be fair, the homicide investigator angle makes for an interesting read, and Mr. Wallace seems like an intelligent man, if very mis- or under-informed on certain topics. I admire his openness to criticism and investigation. This book also changed my mind on the gospels: Rather than a complete fabrication, I now believe they are embellished factual accounts. And despite Wallace saying otherwise, the gospels do show significant signs of unreliability, and I came to this conclusion based on what is presented in the book.

The first thing I take umbrage with is on page 25, when he launches into philosophical naturalism. This is the belief that only natural laws and forces operate in the world. If you take the gospels at face value, then supernatural events must be true. I am not a philosophical naturalist per se, I am willing to accept the supernatural, but I want evidence before accepting it as a credible option. When someone can replicate or reliably observe a phenomenon and rule it out as a natural occurrence, or show that the phenomenon has unseen intelligent agency, then I will accept the possibility of the supernatural in the bible. Until then, other much more plausible options take precedence, namely the fallibility of human observation and experience. I have a background in psychology, so I am much more suspicious of human memory and recollection than Wallace seems to be, even taking into account the naturally differing perspectives of eyewitnesses.

Page 40: Wallace lays out the reasons why Jesus must have been resurrected supernaturally. I think it is possible that he was resurrected, but I find other scenarios, in Wallace's own words, more 'reasonable':

1. It was uncommon but not unheard of for people to be thought dead when they really were not, especially before the age of modern medicine. Heart beat and breathing can become so faint that it's difficult to tell if they're alive. It is possible that he could have been taken down from the cross, presumed dead, and was revived some time later. Maybe the roman guards were deceived or bought off. However doubtful these options, I find it much more likely than a divine resurrection.

2. A non-disciple, or even a non-christian, may have removed Jesus's body from the tomb. This would explain the missing body to coincide with the resurrection without requiring the disciples to lie. I recognize Wallace's reasons for believing this is unlikely, but again, it's more probable than divine resurrection.

3. The disciples could have taken the body from the tomb and lied about the resurrection. I disagree with Wallace on this one: He claims that this scenario would fail to account for the transformed lives of the apostles. If Jesus was truly as extraordinary as the bible says, they could have been transformed even without the resurrection taking place at all, but could have lied about it to cement the legend of a man they respected and loved. He claims that "people local to the event would have know it was a lie," the 500-some witnesses that saw and testified to the resurrection. Based on my reading and research of cults and the nature of delusions, I know that people can fool themselves into believing anything, especially if their beliefs are reinforced by a peer group and, more importantly, religious conviction. There is scant evidence of what this group of witnesses specifically thought they saw, so this only emphasizes the point. He also says that the disciples lacked the motivation to create such a lie. This is patently false - one of the greatest motivators of all is that of believing your life, marked by destiny, is now burdened with one of the most important duties in human history: Spreading the word of Jesus and his miraculous resurrection. It's somewhere between being a martyr and having delusions of grandeur. This kind of delusion is extremely powerful, because to deny the delusion (that you are, in fact, not that special, and your spiritual life is a lie) is so painful and destructive to identity.

4. It's possible that Jesus himself was a charlatan from the beginning. And while we're in improbable territory of a divine resurrection, I'll volunteer the possibility that Jesus was an alien or a time traveler. It would account for all of his miraculous powers with no divine intervention necessary. Likely? Heck no. But with no evidence one way or another, it seems as likely to me as divine powers - all of the options in this category would require no subterfuge from the apostles.

5. Lastly, having read a lot of psychological case studies, I am struck by how straight-forward and uncomplicated most of Wallace's possible solutions are. I disagree with Wallace again on this one - in my experience, the truth is often convoluted, especially the more people you add to the mix. There may be a thread of the narrative that is simple, but you miss a lot of the important nuances that drove people to certain deeds. If I had to guess, I imagine the truth is a combination of many solutions.

None of these solutions even touch the subject of when the gospels were written and their reliability as eyewitness testimony, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

Page 54: Wallace says "In all my years working cold-case homicides, I've yet to encounter a case that was assisted by DNA." On the contrary, while he may not have ever convicted someone based on DNA, he writes at length about ruling out innocent suspects. I'd say that's a good thing, and yet this passage appears to cast doubt on DNA's usefulness to criminal forensics. It definitely raised an eyebrow from me.

Page 60: "The vast majority of scientists continue to acknowledge that the universe came into being from nothing at some point in the distant past. Many have articulated this as the "big bang theory"... But if the universe "began to exist," what "began" it?" This is a really simplified and crude description of the big bang, and really not correct. Few credible scientists would say that the universe began at this point, only the universe as we now know it. The big bang describes the singularity of all time and matter in our universe, to such a degree that none of our math describing the event makes sense, and anything "before" the big bang is mere speculation. Frankly, even the words "before" and "begin" don't really make sense when time itself doesn't seem to exist in this universe until the singularity expands.

More intriguing on this page is the quote, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Wallace asserts that an all-powerful intelligence - God - is the answer. This is one of many false dichotomies in the book: It's either the big bang or God, suggests Wallace. But fact there are a myriad of possible answers. Why not an eternal unintelligent force, where our universe is a natural physical inevitability? What if there is no beginning at all, just an endless procession of multiverses? Wallace's analysis on this subject seems very limited.

Page 61: There is a hilariously and idiotically simplified version of the Anthropic Principle here. I recommend Paul Davies' book The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right For Life? if you want a more complete view of the Anthropric Principle.

Page 62: The Teleological Argument is the same old rehash apologetics get into explaining why life must have been designed, when modern biology has shown in extreme detail how complex "designed" systems can occur solely through mutation and natural selection (the latter of which, contrary to Wallace's opinion, isn't blind at all). Moreover, even if life was designed by a super intelligent being, creationists have been woefully inadequate at providing a better replacement model than evolution. Evolution describes everything from how bacteria resist antibiotics to similar patterns of DNA and chromosomes between chimps and humans. We can create reliable predictions based on the theory of evolution, something which intelligent design still struggles with. If a creationist model of life leads to better medicine or higher yield crops, I will give it the time of day. Never mind the issue that if life did have a designer, there is no proof that it was God as opposed to, say, an intellectually superior race of aliens.

Also on this page is the claim that "intelligence is the only known cause of complex functionally integrated information processing systems." There are several problems with this, but I'll only touch on it briefly. "Information" is a very anthropocentric concept in this context. The way the galaxy is shaped due to gravity is a kind of information, every bit as physically inevitable as an algorithm buzzing in the neurons and synapses of a mathematician. Crystals, like a life form, grow in an orderly fashion, and are "told" how to organize by the structures around it. If you break off a bit of crystal and put it in a suitable environment, it will make more of itself, just the way DNA would. And yet you would rarely find anyone assert this is "information" in the traditional sense. I see very little difference. The claim that DNA is the only naturally-occuring digital code, and thus made by an intelligent source, is a nonsensical assertion.

Page 64: The Axiological Argument makes an appearance here, aka "Absolute Morality". I am not a proponent of relative morality, but I frame this argument more in terms of how humans thrive or don't thrive as a society versus right and wrong. Unlike Absolute Morality, I don't necessarily think there can only be one correct solution for a given moral question, and there can be many ways in which human beings can thrive. I think it is appropriate and necessary to question if our gut feeling produces the best moral outcome, which is contrary to what Wallace proposes. I also completely disagree with the assertion that moral "laws" can only come from moral lawmakers. Moral laws can be easily explained by natural evolutionary constructs, and there is no evidence that a moral lawmaker is necessary, so this is merely Wallace's opinion.

"Darwinian evolution has great difficult accounting for the existence of objective moral obligations for two reasons. First, if we live in a purely natural, physical world governed by the "cause and effect" relationships between chemical processes in our brains, "free will" is an illusion, and the idea of true moral choice is nonsensical. How can I, as a detective, hold a murderer accountable for a series of chemical reactions that occurred in his brain when he didn't have the freedom to escape the causal chain of biological events?" First, this statement presupposes that "transcendent moral laws" are a given, which he failed to provide evidence of. Second, free will might well be an illusion, and this is in fact the conclusion that many physicists, neuroscientists, and psychologists have come to. His rhetorical question at the end of the paragraph is only a moral quandary because we live in a society of blame and punishment, rather than focusing on what factors led an individual to harm the fabric of society and how we can help them stop. A recent episode of Radiolab called "Blame" covers this topic.

The paragraph after that contains this gem: "If morality is simply a convention of our species, we'd better hope that science-fiction writers are wrong about the possibility of sentient life in other parts of the universe. Unless there is a "law above the laws," an entity such as Star Treks's United Federation of Planets would be powerless to stop immoral behavior." Both of these sentences are simply flabbergasting. Even if absolute morality isn't pervasive across all species in the universe, why couldn't an alien race have their very own standards of morality, some or most of which might overlap with our own? Secondly, why would we be powerless to stop immorality even if there aren't absolute moral laws? We change and enforce our laws all the time, and while we try to make our laws moral, we are far from perfect. Both of these points are irrelevant to the truth value of Absolute Morality.

Page 69: At the front of Chapter 4 is an anecdote of a witness on the stand, and the defense attorney is trying to determine how reliable the witness's testimony is. Specifically, the defense is attempting to identify the man who robbed the witness. After an exhaustive list of mitigating circumstances (it was dark, the witness wasn't wearing his glasses, the encounter with the robber was very brief, etc), this passage occurs:

"'On a scale of one to one hundred, how certain are you that this man... robbed you?'
Jerry Strickland sat up in his chair and leaned forward. He paused just slightly before answering. 'I am 100 percent certain that this is the man who robbed me. There is no doubt in my mind.'
The jury returned a verdict in less than thirty minutes and convicted the defendant, largely on the strength of Strickland's eyewitness testimony."

I was completely sickened by this account, and I almost threw the book down in disgust. The defense showed in great detail that the witness's account was not reliable, and yet this is shown as a positive example of reliable testimony. Good, well-meaning people make observational and memory mistakes all the time, and the witness's certainty of his own testimony raised a huge red flag for me. This is a well-studied phenomenon in psychology called the "Overconfidence Effect." There is a Radiolab episode that deals with this subject too, namely "Are You Sure?"
With disrespect entirely meant, between this passage and his remarks about forensic DNA on page 54, I wonder if Wallace has ever put an innocent person in jail.

Page 76: Here Wallace shows how two people could describe the same event completely differently and yet both still yield important information. I just wanted to point one thing I did really like in this book, since so much of my analysis has been negative so far. On the other hand, Wallace never mentions the possibility of a witness being absolutely sure of a specific detail and yet being wrong, thus implicating the wrong suspect. This relates back to my previous criticism.

Page 90: I like how Wallace laid out the distinguishing features of Mark's gospel. This is the page that started to change my mind about if the gospels were fabricated or the accounts of real people. I must admit they have many hallmarks of real witnesses, especially after Wallace extensively set up the foundation for his case.

Page 116: Wallace once again presses his conviction that the apostles would never die for what they knew to be false. While I'm more in the "delusional" camp myself, I don't think it's impossible that the apostles would agree to a conspiracy. If they were convinced that the importance of spreading of Jesus's word superseded the literal truth, I think they could pull it off.

Page 134: This passage is called "Evidential Sufficiency and the Problem of Evil." This is the Epicurean Dilemma, and because psychology and biology are my strong suits, not philosophy, I'll leave this subject mostly alone. I will say this: Wallace is no philosopher, and his analysis of this problem is boorish at best, riddled with false dichotomies and other fallacies. You'd do much better to read other books on this concept.

Finally, on page 155, Wallace gets heavy duty with examining the evidence. First up is describing the timeline between Jesus's life and the Council of Laodicea. While this passage did convince me that the gospels were most likely accounts from people who were present and did know Jesus (or at the very least, Mark probably was), this section also severely handicapped other aspects of the gospels' credibility for me. The span of time between Jesus's crucifixion and the earliest Mark could have written his gospel is 12 years. 12 years! A tiny minority of scholars date Mark's gospel all the way back to 36 AD, which is still three years after Christ died. Even three years is a really long time when you are attempting to accurately chronicle the life of a philosophically complex man, never mind recording entire conversations with him. So, while I can swallow the pill that the gospels represent the accounts of real witnesses, they were written way after the fact, and the later gospels are constantly referencing back to earlier works, potentially contaminating their unique point of view.

Page 188: "Perhaps the finest example of unintentional support is found in an episode described in all four gospels: the miracle of the 'feeding of the five thousand.'" Oddly enough, although Wallace intends for this segment to support his cause, it damaged it for me. The numbers mentioned in the subsequent passages - five loaves, two fishes, twelve baskets, five thousand people - are very specific, and they are absolutely identical across all four gospels. It stinks of contaminated witnesses, or even wholesale fabrication, with Mark writing his story and the later gospels matching his account. Given how much time Wallace spends on assuring us that witness accounts can differ significantly and still be reliable, and given how fallible memory tends to be years after the original event, it is astronomically unlikely that all four gospels would match without some kind of tampering or harmonizing going on. The fact that they match perfectly in the details looks extremely fake to me.

How well the gospels were preserved after this point seems almost irrelevant (although Wallace shows they were probably passed on faithfully). The time gap between Jesus's death and the first gospel appearing alone is enough to almost dismiss the reliability of the gospels completely. The suspicious, carbon-copy insertions seal the deal for me.

Wallace finishes the book with a personal testament of how his life changed when he accepted Christ. Great, I'm glad. I feel sorry that being an atheist was an unhappy proposition for him. However, being happier with Christianity adds not one iota of truth value to the gospels.

I gave this book two stars instead of one because it did provide some useful information, and it helped clarify my thoughts about how likely the gospel accounts are. It also piqued my interest to do some additional reading about the gospels, although next time I want to read from the point of view of an actual theological historian. I would not recommend Cold-Case Christianity to anyone else.

[Randy Carson]

Another random review. See, here's the thing. A person making claims about religion is talking about something that has to be specifically true as it is presented in full. It can't be partly true. You can make claims of all sorts about validity, but your whole effort here has centered around the validity (there's that word again) of Jesus and the gospels and early writings, but frankly you haven't proven it.

And here's why; if anyone can debunk even the smallest part of your "specifically true as presented in full" religion, it calls into question the entirety of it. And there certainly has been a lot of cold water thrown on your gospel fire.

Another review trashes cold case christianity. Good enough for me.

Should I start quoting the positive reviews? There are lots of them. Out of 665 reviews:

5 Stars     82%
4 Stars     12%
3 Stars     3%
2 Stars     1%
1 Stars     2%

I've read the book. Have you?

When you do, then we will have something more to talk about.

[Randy Carson]

Wallace's second book...

"With the expertise of a cold-case detective, J. Warner examines eight critical pieces of evidence in the "crime scene" of the universe to determine if they point to a Divine Intruder. If you have ever wondered if something (or someone) outside the natural realm created the universe and everything in it, this is the case for you." - Amazon