'Cold-Case Christianity'

[Enki]

But how did Bart pull it off?
Did he find that naturalism arbitrarily rules out the supernatural? So none of the supernatural claims could be true?

Don't even know what you mean by 'did Bart pull it off?'

Pull what off?(the mind boggles)

On the second part, the answer is no. What he did come to the conclusion on, was that the Bible doesn't seem to be the inspired innerant word of God, but much more likely the musings of human beings, and subject, throughout its history, to all kinds of alterations.

As he said in his introduction to "Misquoting Jesus" :

The Bible began to appear to me as a very human book. Just as human scribes had copied, and changed, the texts of scripture, so too had human authors originally written the texts of scripture. This was a human book from beginning to end. It was written by different human authors at different times and in different places to address different needs.

And:

It is a radical shift from reading the Bible as an inerrant blueprint for our faith, life, and future to seeing it as a very human book, with very human points of view, many of which differ from one another and none of which provides the inerrant guide to how we should live.

His approach to his understanding and study of the Bible changed him from being an evangelistic Christian, to being a much more liberal Christian and leading him eventually to being an agnostic atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't even know what you mean by 'did Bart pull it off?'

Pull what off?(the mind boggles)

On the second part, the answer is no. What he did come to the conclusion on, was that the Bible doesn't seem to be the inspired innerant word of God

But that's the point Enki. How did Bart pull off finding that the bible was not divinely inspired?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I wonder if he interviewed them to verify their accounts?

All he could do is to make an informed opinion on whether the New Testament was more reportage than a work of fiction. Then he could only make an informed opinion on whether there was any conspiracy going on given differences in the account.

Given many atheists claim a fourth century christian conspiracy that would I imagine be the point at which many today think the trail goes cold.

I did find a website outlining the areas of study in his book. It looks quite interesting and methodical.

[Nearly Sane]

All he could do is to make an informed opinion on whether the New Testament was more reportage than a work of fiction. Then he could only make an informed opinion on whether there was any conspiracy going on given differences in the account.

Given many atheists claim a fourth century christian conspiracy that would I imagine be the point at which many today think the trail goes cold.

I did find a website outlining the areas of study in his book. It looks quite interesting and methodical.

which makes the entirety of the cold case stuff irrelevant since that isn't what this is. Sorry that you pissed on Hope's bonfire.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

which makes the entirety of the cold case stuff irrelevant since that isn't what this is. Sorry that you pissed on Hope's bonfire.

But it isn't conclusively mythology or fourth century conspiracy either and let's face it atheists have an opinion on it including the unevidenced claim that it is a fiction written centuries after.

That this is an of the cuff claim is exemplified in the fact that the New testament would have to be the greatest work of fiction written but of course that admission would go against the thick bronze age goatherders theory beloved of thick modern antitheist shiteherders .

[Nearly Sane]

But it isn't conclusively mythology or fourth century conspiracy either and let's face it atheists have an opinion on it including the unevidenced claim that it is a fiction written centuries after.

That this is an of the cuff claim is exemplified that the bible would have to be the greatest work of fiction written but of course that admission would go against the thick bronze age goatherders theory beloved of thick modern antitheist shiteherders .

and again no one has said that -Vlad goes for his own record of plying - he only needs another 13 lies today on the board to make his own individual record of 106 in a day

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and again no one has said that -Vlad goes for his own record of plying - he only needs another 13 lies today on the board to make his own individual record of 106 in a day

That's a damned lie.

[Nearly Sane]

That's a damned lie.

I counted them all out, and I counted them all back in again

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I counted them all out, and I counted them all back in again

All that shows is you can't count.

[Nearly Sane]

All that shows is you can't count.

You can't handle the count!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can't handle the count!

I am The Count.

[Nearly Sane]

I am The Count.

only one letter too many there for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

only one letter too many there for you.

rsehole.

[Nearly Sane]

rsehole.

see now you have gone to one to few to describe yourself

[BashfulAnthony]

only one letter too many there for you.

"Cont"??

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry Hillside but you are the victim of your own turd polishing.
All you have is that after his conversion he applied methods to Christian apologetics. So what? He wouldn't have applied them to Christian apologetics as an atheist would he?

The trouble with dealing with someone of near pathological dishonesty is that, no matter what I actually say, you'll just re-invent it for your own purposes.

Not that anyone cares much, here's what happened nonetheless.

First, Hope posted a (not very interesting) link to a Wiki article about a Christian detective.

Second, the article told us that he'd converted back in 1996 after some "investigations". It also told us that after his conversion he'd applied some cold case criminology techniques to the biblical claims which, by that time, he had decided anyway were true (presumably because of his unspecified prior "investigations").

Third, as the part about "investigations" was so vague as to be meaningless (who knows - maybe he finally came up with an answer to the question that you and Hope always run away from about how to distinguish your claims from just guessing) it didn't pique my interest, but a subsequent part about applying cold case techniques after his conversion did. Why? Because that's an expressly naturalistic method, so I posted about the irrelevance of applying that naturalistic method to non-naturalistic conjectures.

Fourth, you then made a post addressed to me that quoted verbatim the relevant part of what I'd said (about the use of cold case methods) and told us that he'd done "all that" - ie, the cold case bit - before his conversion.

Fifth, I corrected you on that - if the article is to be believed he did no such thing. That is, the bit that was relevant, the bit that I commented on, and the bit that you responded to all happened after his conversion. If instead you'd intended to make a general comment about the content of the article as a whole you could have done so, but you didn't do that at all.

Suck it up and move on.         

[Nearly Sane]

"Cont"??

as they say in Somerset

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Having read the article several times I can come to no other conclusion than my previous one.  I realise that the book wasn't published till 2013 and we're not given a writing date, but the sentence both I and NS have quoted is pretty clear as to the timeline of investigation and conversion, something that I'd even referenced in my OP.

No doubt, but it's not the sentence that I commented on as an example of the mistake of applying naturalistic methods to non-naturalistic conjectures, and nor is it the part Vlad erroneously commented on.   

What you seem to be referring to is the sentence in the subsequent paragraph - "After his conversion, Wallace began applying the principles of cold-case homicide investigation to Christian apologetics".

Yes, because that's the bit I quoted and commented on.

I could suggest the same of you.

Then you'd suggest wrongly. See above.

[Hope]

Hope,

No doubt, but it's not the sentence that I commented on as an example of the mistake of applying naturalistic methods to non-naturalistic conjectures, and nor is it the part Vlad erroneously commented on.   

Yes, because that's the bit I quoted and commented on.

Then you'd suggest wrongly. See above.

But the second sentence is not the original issue, whist the first - as far as any timeline is concerned - is.  Remember that applying Cold Case techniques to the gospels is very different to applying them to Christian Apologetics.

[Nearly Sane]

But the second sentence is not the original issue, whist the first - as far as any timeline is concerned - is.  Remember that applying Cold Case techniques to the gospels is very different to applying them to Christian Apologetics.

None of which distinction is covered in your OP. So given that and multiple questions on the thread, put forward an argument that he makes.

[Hope]

None of which distinction is covered in your OP. So given that and multiple questions on the thread, put forward an argument that he makes.

I agree, but then my OP was a 'starter for ten' (as are most OPs) which wasn't designed to provide the full story but to get peope discussing.  So, one of his arguments is that the gospels fulfill all the necessary requirements, all the characteristics one would expect to find in eye-witness evidence when following through a cold-case investigation. 

[Nearly Sane]

I agree, but then my OP was a 'starter for ten' (as are most OPs) which wasn't designed to provide the full story but to get peope discussing.  So, one of his arguments is that the gospels fulfill all the necessary requirements, all the characteristics one would expect to find in eye-witness evidence when following through a cold-case investigation.

that's not an argument, that's an assertion

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

But the second sentence is not the original issue, whist the first - as far as any timeline is concerned - is.  Remember that applying Cold Case techniques to the gospels is very different to applying them to Christian Apologetics.

Nope. The "original issue" is what you decided it would be in your OP. Here in fact:

Has anyone read this book by a former atheist homicide detective (James Warner Wallace) who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases.  In the course of this process, initiated in order to disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all, he became convinced of its validity.  He even points out that the 'contradictions' match what you would expect to find from witnesses in any such case.


Note that "who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases". I replied about that "original issue" to the effect that in that case he was committing a category error. 

Vlad then replied to me by name and quoted what I'd said about this "original issue" and expressed his opinion that Wallace had begun "all that" - ie, my point to which he was replying - before his conversion.

If the Wiki article is to believed Vlad was wrong about that, and I explained why.

Subsequently there was discussion about the article also referring to his conversion before unspecified "investigations", but that wasn't your original issue, it wasn't the issue I commented on, and it wasn't the relevant part when Vlad went off the rails when he referred to my post and mistakenly said that its contents concerned something Wallace had done before his conversion.

As for your original point, what we have is someone who apparently is already a committed Christian deciding to apply his policing experience of cold cases and finding that it confirms (or doesn't disconfirm) the faith position he held anyway.

There are lots of problems with that, not least the risk of confirmation bias and the fact that the objections to the resurrection story being true are many and various - that the Chinese whispers effect may have corrupted the consistency of the subsequent narratives is the least of it.

Apart from all that though...       

[Sebastian Toe]

......turd polishing.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=636643;topic=12525.600;last_msg=636690

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Has anyone read this book by a former atheist homicide detective (James Warner Wallace) who used the same methodology on the gospels as on a number of other 'cold' cases.  In the course of this process, initiated in order to disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all, he became convinced of its validity.  He even points out that the 'contradictions' match what you would expect to find from witnesses in any such case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Warner_Wallace notes his credentials.

I haven’t read the book, but the approach used is interesting. Since I’ve been on this forum, I’ve seen it asked on numerous occasions as to what method the non believer should apply when investigating claims of a potentially supernatural nature? Well, here it is...an inductive one!

A key property of the inductive process is that it has to be falsifiable. Starting with the evidence can lead to truth, but it is not guaranteed to lead to truth. With an inductive approach, faith has to be applied because certainty is not guaranteed, and in fact can never be guaranteed!

The detective may have set out with the intention of disproving the basis of Christianity, but the fact that he changed his mind showed that his worldview was falsifiable. He used the same techniques that were part of his job. Secular philosophies do not have a monopoly on inductive techniques; they are there for all.

In order not to take this thread off-topic, I’ll be starting a separate thread to expand on some of these themes...