Cold-Case Christianity (Updated & Expanded Edition): A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

by J. Warner Wallace

The logical law of “noncontradiction” states contradictory statements cannot both be true at the same time. Those who are evaluating the claims of the world’s religions, like jurors evaluating a criminal case, must decide which of the views is supported by the ev...

In addition to this, those who are investigating Christianity may want to rethink the latest cultural definitions of truth and tolerance.

Those who claim truth is a matter of perspective and opinion are proclaiming this as more than a matter of perspective and opinion.

They would like us to believe this definition is objectively true, even as they deny the ex...

When a statement fails to meet its own standard for being true, it is said to be “self-refuting.” The claim “objective truth does not exist” is self-refuting because i...

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS FOCUS ON THE BEST THE PROSECUTION HAS TO OFFER

While circumstantial cases are built on many pieces of evidence evaluated as a group, some pieces are better (and more important to the case) than others.

The Christian worldview is built on the eyewitness testimony of the gospel writers. For this reason, many skeptics attack the reliability of the Gospels as their primary tactic in trying to defeat the case for Christianity.

skeptics recognize our most valuable piece of evidence.

As a result, some critics attempt to undermine the reliability of the gospel ...

while others seek to have this testimony “tossed out” as unreliable “hearsay” before it can even be evaluated. They argue the gospel accounts fail to meet the judicial standa...

this standard is simply too much to require of historical eyewitness testimony. The vast majority of historical events must be evaluated despite the fact the eyewitnesses are now dead and cannot come into court to testify.

If we require this standard for historical accounts, be prepared to jettison everything you think you know about the past. Nothing can be known about history if live eyewitnesses are the only reliable witnesses we can consult. If this were the case, we could know nothing with certainty beyond two or three living generations, including two or three living generations of your own family.

we have great confidence about many historical events, despite the fact the eyewitnesses have long been in their graves. As we evaluate the writers of any historical account, we must simply do our best to assess them under the four criteria we discussed in chapter 4

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TARGET THE MICRO AND DISTRACT FROM THE MACRO

Let’s look at the case for Peter’s influence on the gospel of Mark

Skeptics have noticed Mark’s account fails to include the fact Peter got out of the boat and nearly drowned when Jesus was walking on water

If this part of the puzzle is examined in isolation, it seems reasonable Peter had no influence on the gospel of Mark at all (as many skeptics claim).

How could Mark leave out this detail if he truly had access to Peter?

when this individual passage is examined alongside all the other verses involving Peter in the gospel of Mark, the more reasonable explanation emerges. It’s only when examining all these passages collectively we see Mark’s consistent pattern of respect and stewardship toward Peter.

It’s in the larger context where we discover Mark consistently seeks to protect Peter’s reputation and honor.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ATTACK THE MESSENGER

Nearly every piece of courtroom evidence is submitted through the involvement of a human agent.

even forensic evidence is dependent on human participation: a detective who first observed it or a criminalist who later examined it.

History is obviously replete with examples of people who claimed to be Christians, yet behaved poorly. In fact, many people have committed great violence in the name of Christianity, claiming their Christian worldview authorized or justified their actions, even though the teaching of Jesus clearly opposed their behavior.

But a fair examination of history will also reveal Christians were not alone. Groups holding virtually every worldview, from theists to atheists, have been equally guilty of violent misbehavior. Atheists point to the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition when making a case against Christians; theists point to the atheistic regimes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong when making a case against atheists.

The common denominator in this violent misbehavior was not worldview; it was the presence of humans.

If we intend to decide what’s true based on how people behave, we’re in big trouble, because every worldview suffers from examples of adherents who have behaved inconsistently and poorly.

Public debates are often less about substantive arguments than they are about ad hominem attacks.

Tactics relying on sarcasm and ridicule must not be allowed to replace arguments relying on evidence and reason.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WANT PERFECTION

skeptics point to the allegedly “imperfect” or “incomplete” historical evidence supporting the claims of Christianity.

While expectations of perfection may assist

skeptics as they attack the claims of Christianity, these kinds of expectations are unreasonable.

All inquiries and examinations of the truth (including historical investigations) have ...

The evidence is either sufficient ...

skeptics cannot reject the reasonable inferences from the evidence we do have, simply because there may possibly be some evidence we don’t have; skeptics also need to defend their doubt evidentially.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE “POSSIBILITIES”

Some skeptics have denied the existence of Jesus altogether by proposing an alternative possibility. Citing the similarities between Jesus and other “savior mythologies” of antiquity, they’ve argued Jesus is simply another work of fiction, created by people who wanted to start a new religious tradition.

It’s important to remember a “possible” response is not necessarily a “plausible” refutation.

DEFENSE ATTORNEYS EMPLOY A CULTURALLY WINSOME ATTITUDE

How you deliver a claim is sometimes more important than the claim itself.

The facts are sometimes of secondary importance.

Christians are not the only people who take an urgent, evangelical approach to their worldview. Many popular atheists are equally interested in proselytizing those around them.

They often portray Christians as antiquated, backward-thinking “dinosaurs” who are out of touch with progressive concepts and the current culture. They recognize and capitalize on the well-intentioned desire of many Christians to resist the things of the world in favor of the things of God

Skeptics often have an advantage in communicating their opposition and alternative theories simply because they are more aligned with the culture they are trying to influence.

This is often revealed most glaringly in televised debates between Christians and nonbelievers. The most effective skeptics are those who (like effective defense attorneys) make a winsome connection with the audience.

In a culture where image is more important than information, style more important than substance, it is not enough to possess the truth. Case makers must also master the media.

When the prosecution presents a case in the courtroom, the defense is left with three possible responses: they can declare, destroy, or distract.

By attacking the nature of truth, targeting the foundation of the prosecution’s case, focusing on the micro rather than the macro, disparaging the prosecution’s witnesses, raising the expectation of perfection, offering unsupported possibilities, and delivering all of this in a winsome way, defense attorneys attempt to distract juries from the larger picture. They don’t want the jury to see the forest through the trees. They don’t want the jury to see the connected and reasonable nature of the cumulative circumstantial case.