'Cold-Case Christianity'

[Hope]

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.

[Brownie]

I've not heard of him, Hope, but I have read similar from others or a-nother many years ago;  also knew a couple of people who did what James Wallace describes and came to faith via that route.

[jeremyp]

I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia entry says

Wallace converted from atheism to Christianity at the age of 35, after investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts to the life of Jesus.

Allegedly he is a homicide detective and yet he can't see that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. I hope he is more scrupulous in his day job.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia entry says
Allegedly he is a homicide detective and yet he can't see that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. I hope he is more scrupulous in his day job.

As Hillside would say you have committed a Bourne imperative here.
This homicide detective has looked at the Gospels and determined that they do indeed contain reportage and literature that is recognisably ''witness statement''.

CS Lewis, an expert on myth also detected elements that were not mythical writing.

[Gordon]

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 suspect he might being applying different standards as regards the gospels compared with his day job. For example his 'witness statements' are potentially post-hoc by years, are of unknown provenance and claim remarkable things that I doubt have a related investigation protocol in the 'how to investigate stuff' detectives manual - and there are no 'forensics'.

Imagine the case being handled by Jack Regan of 'The Sweeney' fame: Carter says 'There are reports of a death, guv' so Regan replies 'right; secure there area - nobody touches the body - and call in SOCO a.s.a.p'. Carter pauses, thinking about how to say what he needs to tell his boss, and then says 'you're not going to believe this, guv, but we're being told the guy was dead for sure for 3 days - but then he wasn't - has been seen around and about, apparently'.

Regan throws his fag on the floor, grinds it under his shoe, glares menacingly at Carter, and then heads to the pub shaking his head as he goes. Cue the slow version of the theme tune. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith, and undeterred by the category error concludes that the contradictory accounts of the latter are not dissimilar to the contradictory accounts you sometimes find after the former.

And that's meant to demonstrate what exactly?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hope,

So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith, and undeterred by the category error concludes that the contradictory accounts of the latter are not dissimilar to the contradictory accounts you sometimes find after the former.

And that's meant to demonstrate what exactly?

Sorry, But wasn't he an atheist former detective when he started all of this Hillside? I think you might have committed an Icarus Agenda here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suspect he might being applying different standards as regards the gospels compared with his day job. For example his 'witness statements' are potentially post-hoc by years, are of unknown provenance and claim remarkable things that I doubt have a related investigation protocol in the 'how to investigate stuff' detectives manual - and there are no 'forensics'.

Imagine the case being handled by Jack Regan of 'The Sweeney' fame: Carter says 'There are reports of a death, guv' so Regan replies 'right; secure there area - nobody touches the body - and call in SOCO a.s.a.p'. Carter pauses, thinking about how to say what he needs to tell his boss, and then says 'you're not going to believe this, guv, but we're being told the guy was dead for sure for 3 days - but then he wasn't - has been seen around and about, apparently'.

Regan throws his fag on the floor, grinds it under his shoe, glares menacingly at Carter, and then heads to the pub shaking his head as he goes. Cue the slow version of the theme tune.

Great I suppose we can now, following your logic dismiss all those modern psychiatric analyses of the saints then..................fat chance in the world of antitheist double standard.

[Sassy]

I haven't read the book, but the Wikipedia entry says
Allegedly he is a homicide detective and yet he can't see that the gospels are not eye witness accounts. I hope he is more scrupulous in his day job.

Is that you talking as a homicide detective with years of experience or an atheist a bit peeved that someone using using skills you don't have came to believe the Gospels were what you would expect of witness to say?
God works in mysterious ways. Tell me what you have done regarding the gospels and what you have learned as an atheist that you can show they are not eyewitness accounts... Don't use something from someone else...

[Sassy]

I suspect he might being applying different standards as regards the gospels compared with his day job. For example his 'witness statements' are potentially post-hoc by years, are of unknown provenance and claim remarkable things that I doubt have a related investigation protocol in the 'how to investigate stuff' detectives manual - and there are no 'forensics'.

Imagine the case being handled by Jack Regan of 'The Sweeney' fame: Carter says 'There are reports of a death, guv' so Regan replies 'right; secure there area - nobody touches the body - and call in SOCO a.s.a.p'. Carter pauses, thinking about how to say what he needs to tell his boss, and then says 'you're not going to believe this, guv, but we're being told the guy was dead for sure for 3 days - but then he wasn't - has been seen around and about, apparently'.

Regan throws his fag on the floor, grinds it under his shoe, glares menacingly at Carter, and then heads to the pub shaking his head as he goes. Cue the slow version of the theme tune.

Believing is seeing....

Isn't that the route most take... They have to look for truth about Jesus and be prepared to want the outcome if it shows up to be true.

It Is clear from your reply that you like so many have to find answers which do not come from yourself but the use of props.
The guy clearly used what knowledge he had and in reading with the same he found the elements which show him they are true.

Do you not believe the possibility that he is right and you are wrong? If so, what will you do about it?

[Sassy]

Hope,

So a Christian apologist former detective decides to apply the naturalistic methods of criminology to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith, and undeterred by the category error concludes that the contradictory accounts of the latter are not dissimilar to the contradictory accounts you sometimes find after the former.

And that's meant to demonstrate what exactly?

You omit the big point....

to the non-naturalistic claims of his faith

HE DIDN'T HAVE A FAITH.
He was not religious.

In the course of this process, initiated in order to disprove the basis of Christianity once and for all,

Your post becomes misleading and you mislead yourself, albeit unintentionally. But the fact remains the man did not do as you said he did.

How come we read the post and knew what you didn't. Could it be that we, the detective and I, read what is written and not what we want it to say.  Could you be mistaken when you read other things?

[Gordon]

Great I suppose we can now, following your logic dismiss all those modern psychiatric analyses of the saints then..................fat chance in the world of antitheist double standard.

No idea, since I haven't seen them - but of course this isn't what this thread is about, which is the ridiculous notion that Christianity is somehow supported by modern methods of police investigation being applied to ancient anecdote that is indistinguishable from fiction, where the risks of mistake or lies in these accounts hasn't been addressed.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea, since I haven't seen them - but of course this isn't what this thread is about, which is the ridiculous notion that Christianity is somehow supported by modern methods of police investigation being applied to ancient anecdote that is indistinguishable from fiction, where the risks of mistake or lies in these accounts hasn't been addressed.   

I see this as an atheist former detective looking at these documents against the background of American biblical fundamentalism and American atheistic scientism and Jesus mythism and, came out against the facile logical nonsense of the Jesus Mythers.

[Gordon]

I see this as an atheist former detective looking at these documents against the background of American biblical fundamentalism and American atheistic scientism and Jesus mythism and, came out against the facile logical nonsense of the Jesus Mythers.

Perhaps you do, Vlad, but then that isn't what the OP suggests.

It suggests that this particular PC Plod was trying to apply current 'police procedural' to ancient anecdote involving claims of the divine: which is of course silly unless said current 'police procedural' has a section on investigating supernatural claims - in which case we'd all love to see what methods are employed.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps you do, Vlad, but then that isn't what the OP suggests.

It suggests that this particular PC Plod was trying to apply current 'police procedural' to ancient anecdote involving claims of the divine: which is of course silly unless said current 'police procedural' has a section on investigating supernatural claims - in which case we'd all love to see what methods are employed.

Something like thus I presume

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm_(TV_series)

[Gordon]

Something like thus I presume

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm_(TV_series)

Yep - we need Detective 'Nick' on the case (looking forward to the new series soon).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps you do, Vlad, but then that isn't what the OP suggests.

It suggests that this particular PC Plod was trying to apply current 'police procedural' to ancient anecdote involving claims of the divine: which is of course silly unless said current 'police procedural' has a section on investigating supernatural claims - in which case we'd all love to see what methods are employed.

I think even more important here is your dismissal of ancient documents and by extension ancient history as 'ancient anecdote'

Also there is the question of how we treat the context namely the early Christian community and on several accounts your own attitude is IMHO wanting and is not a million miles from Nearly Sane's apparent suggestion that since history is supposedly methodological materialist we can create a hole in or a Gordon sanitaire around the history of the early Christian community.

We should conclude of course that for these people these things were absolutely true.

[Nearly Sane]

I think even more important here is your dismissal of ancient documents and by extension ancient history as 'ancient anecdote'

Also there is the question of how we treat the context namely the early Christian community and on several accounts your own attitude is IMHO wanting and is not a million miles from Nearly Sane's apparent suggestion that since history is supposedly methodological materialist we can create a hole in or a Gordon sanitaire around the history of the early Christian community.

We should conclude of course that for these people these things were absolutely true.

Just to note for clarity what I have stated (not apparently suggested) is that history is studied in a methodological naturalistic manner.

[NicholasMarks]

It's an open and shut case...Jesus was murdered by the state. All the evidence tells us this and really, no one seems to deny it...but it is the hidden detail involved that requires the magnifying glass. I wont burden you here...but the evidence says that he knew that this would happen to him and he wanted to pass on to future generations the twists and the turns behind speaking the truth of righteousness and the moronic dictates of authority which allows all sorts of misbehaviour as long as it is kept secret from the public.

Their time will soon be up...Jesus also showed how the true nature of the universe works...he showed us that by standing firm against this cult of oppression, though we may anger many, in the eyes of Almighty God and Jesus Christ we are the salt of  the Earth with a promise of a special place in the future dynamics of this world.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

................................. this particular PC Plod

Patronising.

[Gordon]

I think even more important here is your dismissal of ancient documents and by extension ancient history as 'ancient anecdote'

Touch of straw there Vlad - we are just talking about Christian anecdote and not 'ancient history' - at least I was!

Also there is the question of how we treat the context namely the early Christian community and on several accounts your own attitude is IMHO wanting and is not a million miles from Nearly Sane's apparent suggestion that since history is supposedly methodological materialist we can create a hole in or a Gordon sanitaire around the history of the early Christian community.

History is methodologically naturalistic and so is police investigation since as far as I know the police don't factor in the supernatural as something to be investigated: they seem to rely more on the likes of fingerprint evidence than claims based on reports of divine intervention.

We should conclude of course that for these people these things were absolutely true.

Quite possibly - but that doesn't imply there these things were actually true.

[Gordon]

Patronising.

Nope - I'd say 'fair comment'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Touch of straw there Vlad - we are just talking about Christian anecdote and not 'ancient history' - at least I was!

Well then if you dismiss documentation merely on the grounds of being Christian then that i'm afraid is the genetic fallacy.

Police, Christian ......any other groups who you'd like to suggest yourself superior to?

Of course history is methologically naturalistic.....Nearly Sane says so.

[Nearly Sane]

Well then if you dismiss documentation merely on the grounds of being Christian then that i'm afraid is the genetic fallacy.

Police, Christian ......any other groups who you'd like to suggest yourself superior to?

Of course history is methologically naturalistic.....Nearly Sane says so.

Again please note what I have been saying is that is history is studied in a  methodological naturalistic fashion.

[Gordon]

Well then if you dismiss documentation merely on the grounds of being Christian then that i'm afraid is the genetic fallacy.

Yet another straw man - last time I looked this thread is specifically about Christian sources (these being specific to the activities of this PC Plod).

Police, Christian ......any other groups who you'd like to suggest yourself superior to?

Nope - this thread is about what this guy was up to.

Of course history is methologically naturalistic.....Nearly Sane says so.

NS is talking about how history is currently studied and investigated, in the absence of a method that isn't methodologically naturalistic.