'Cold-Case Christianity'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

No it doesn't, and I didn't "carefully edit out" anything. The issue under discussion was the application of the "cold case" methods of criminology. I commented on its inappropriateness, Vlad said that he did it before he converted, and I showed him that (according to the article) Wallace did no such thing.

We can discuss the "investigating the gospels as potential eyewitness accounts" part too if you want to, but that's not the part I referenced in my original post and it's not the part Vlad responded to therefore.

Vlad is notorious for his dishonesty here. Please don't tar me with the same brush.

I'm afraid reply 25 is the smoking Gun Hillside it's those three little Dot's...

[Enki]

and of of this is entirely pointless, since I could quote numbers of people who gave up their faith on investigating it further. That this has happened in both directions is factual. Had it only happened in one direction, it wouldn't amount to an argument for truth.

If you want to make an argument read the books and tell us the arguments. They are what matter.

Yes, indeed.  E.g. Bart Ehrman

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You quoted a sentence, part of which obviously undermines your position, and you left that bit out and that isn't 'carefully editing it out'?

Two words, both positive. Aye, right!

It didn't undermine my position at all - it was irrelevant to it. My point concerned the use of the naturalistic cold-case investigation techniques of criminology to the non-naturalistic conjectures of his faith. He did that we're told after his conversion, ergo Vlad was wrong about the point actually under discussion.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm afraid reply 25 is the smoking Gun Hillside it's those three little Dot's...

The mystery for me is still Nearly Sanes simultaneous defence of the quoting of the problem of induction and his suggestion that history as methodologically naturalistic rules out the claims of Christianity........

perhaps the mystery of that is that once again it's a misrepresentation, Vlad. I have never said anything about ruling out non naturalistic claims. And indeed have said that I don't see any way you can rule them in or out with our current methods. I've corrected you specifically on that multiple times. So once again please  stop lying about what people say.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

It didn't undermine my position at all - it was irrelevant to it. My point concerned the use of the naturalistic cold-case investigation techniques of criminology to the non-naturalistic conjectures of his faith. He did that we're told after his conversion, ergo Vlad was wrong about the point actually under discussion.

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

perhaps the mystery of that is that once again it's a misrepresentation, Vlad. I have never said anything about ruling out non naturalistic claims. And indeed have said that I don't see any way you can rule them in or out with our current methods. I've corrected you specifically on that multiple times. So once again please  stop lying about what people say.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your continuing appeals to methodological naturalism nor the significance of history being studied in a methodological naturalistic way, whatever that means.
A description of former detective and former atheist's book is available to all via the internet. So I don't understand your demands from Hope or myself.
The big clue NS was in my choice of the word mystery.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the exchanges on here underline that it's the arguments that matter from the books. Until they are presented, that there are such books, is not conducive to any conclusions

[jjohnjil]

No Body, no DNA, no witnesses to interrogate, no proof the guy even existed!

I think all the cases this detective had dealings with should be reinvestigated immediately.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry but I don't understand your continuing appeals to methodological naturalism nor the significance of history being studied in a methodological naturalistic way, whatever that means.
A description of former detective and former atheist's book is available to all via the internet. So I don't understand your demands from Hope or myself.
The big clue NS was in my choice of the word mystery.

I see you are avoiding the mid representation you made, I presume in that ignoring it people might miss out the continued lying. If you want to get into more detail on the subject above, which I have explained to you before, then I want an apology for your lying about what I have said.

[Hope]

Hope,

No it isn't. Try again.

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.

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".

Again, try reading what the article actually says rather than what you'd like it to say.

I could suggest the same of you.

[Nearly Sane]

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.
I could suggest the same of you.

In the end, this is as already pointed out, pointless. That all we have is wiki, which even were it clear, is not any use as an argument, is useless. Do you have any arguments that he makes?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No Body, no DNA, no witnesses to interrogate, no proof the guy even existed!

Welcome to ancient history.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, indeed.  E.g. Bart Ehrman

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?

[Hope]

No Body, no DNA, no witnesses to interrogate, no proof the guy even existed!

I think all the cases this detective had dealings with should be reinvestigated immediately.

Sadly, for your argument, there is sufficient independent (non-Biblical) evidence to indicate that someone of the name and actions reported in the Gospels existed - possibly more than for many other person of the time.  The sticking point is the supernatural element of the story.  By the way, there woul;d seem, according to Wallace, enough eye-witnesses to interrogate - and he did so.

As for opening the cases again, it wouldn't have been him alone - he was part of a team as far as the other cases are concerned so anything out of the ordinary that he might have come up with would have been double- perhaps even triple-checked already.

[Gordon]

By the way, there woul;d seem, according to Wallace, enough eye-witnesses to interrogate - and he did so.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong: these alleged eye-witnesses have been dead for around 2,000 years so interrogating them is out of the question (unless super-sleuth has also developed personal time-travel).   

[Nearly Sane]

Sadly, for your argument, there is sufficient independent (non-Biblical) evidence to indicate that someone of the name and actions reported in the Gospels existed - possibly more than for many other person of the time.  The sticking point is the supernatural element of the story.  By the way, there woul;d seem, according to Wallace, enough eye-witnesses to interrogate - and he did so.

As for opening the cases again, it wouldn't have been him alone - he was part of a team as far as the other cases are concerned so anything out of the ordinary that he might have come up with would have been double- perhaps even triple-checked already.

There is very little ex biblical anything about the existence of Jesus, and astoundingly little about his actions but before we get involved in the bait and switch of questioning this approach being portrayed as mythism, can you present any of his actual arguments, rather than using him as an authority, simply on the basis of a confusedly written wiki page.  And BTW that isn't questioning his authority on his job.
.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong: these alleged eye-witnesses have been dead for around 2,000 years so interrogating them is out of the question (unless super-sleuth has also developed personal time-travel).

I'm presuming Hope is using this figuratively to mean read the gospels as if they were eye witnesses. It underlines though that all thus is based on an analogy, that doesn't really hold up. Until we get someone to present some ofbtgese arguments this discussion has run aground.

[Gordon]

I'm presuming Hope is using this figuratively to mean read the gospels as if they were eye witnesses. It underlines though that all thus is based on an analogy, that doesn't really hold up. Until we get someone to present some ofbtgese arguments this discussion has run aground.

Yikes - if so I'd like to know how this guy assessed the risks of mistakes or lies as he re-read these anecdotal accounts (with his police hat on).

[Nearly Sane]

Yikes - if so I'd like to know how this guy assessed the risks of mistakes or lies as he re-read these anecdotal accounts (with his police hat on).

again, I don't think we can make much progress based on the limits of a wiki page written in an openly confusing manner. Until Hope or someone else  wants to do some detailed investigation, we seem stuck. I haven't seen anything so far that gives me any reason to spend money in what is so far only a baf analogy.

[ippy]

I was reading this discussion following Hope's OP and wondered if this might be a part of the long overdue evidence that Hope thinks he has and nobody has seen?

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong: these alleged eye-witnesses have been dead for around 2,000 years so interrogating them is out of the question (unless super-sleuth has also developed personal time-travel).

Who are we talking about The 'Christian turned atheist' or the atheist turned christian'? Probably the latter as I would imagine that as far as atheist experts are concerned Gordon, the tongue tends ''southwards''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is very little ex biblical anything about the existence of Jesus, and astoundingly little about his actions but before we get involved in the bait and switch of questioning this approach being portrayed as mythism, can you present any of his actual arguments, rather than using him as an authority, simply on the basis of a confusedly written wiki page.  And BTW that isn't questioning his authority on his job.
.

But why the insistence on ''ex biblical''?

[Nearly Sane]

But why the insistence on ''ex biblical''?

Because that's what Hope raised when he talked about non-biblical.

[Jack Knave]

If this goes back decades ago then yes, as I heard about someone (a book) who went out to disprove the Gospels and found themselves finding no substantial flaws and became a Christian. However, if I have to become a copper to actually find out what the truth is then I'm stuffed.

[Jack Knave]

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.

I wonder if he interviewed them to verify their accounts?