Why Cold-Case Skills Can Help You Examine Christianity
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Have you read the Gospels and noticed that some of the details in the accounts aren’t the same? Is that a concern for you? Is that something that might or has caused you to think that the Gospels aren’t reliable?
If so, will you give this clip six minutes of your time and attention? What you may think now is a weakness you may after watching come to see is a strength.
If so, will you give this clip six minutes of your time and attention? What you may think now is a weakness you may after watching come to see is a strength.
An interesting set of videos. But here's the thing, criminals aren't going around performing miracles. If an eyewitness to a murder told this detective that he saw a man kill another man with his mind, I doubt he would buy his testimony.
Why doesn't he apply that same level of skepticism to the gospels? They were written by anonymous people that werent even eyewitnesses to the events they were writing about.
Why is it that every Christian just skips over the Old Testament like it doesn't matter? The story of Adam and Eve is critical to the entire story of Jesus and the resurrection. If it is false, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then Jesus died in vain and the whole story falls apart.
Why doesn't he apply that same level of skepticism to the gospels? They were written by anonymous people that werent even eyewitnesses to the events they were writing about.
Why is it that every Christian just skips over the Old Testament like it doesn't matter? The story of Adam and Eve is critical to the entire story of Jesus and the resurrection. If it is false, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, then Jesus died in vain and the whole story falls apart.
What will you do with them?
Why do you say the authors of the Gospels are anonymous people? John, in particular, is one of the apostles.
Your assertion diverts our attention away from the matter at hand: A man who was dead was made alive again.
***
The Old Testament / Hebrew Bible is the foundation of the New Testament. For any Christian to skip over it would be egregious.
***
Jesus was publicly executed by the government. There are biblical and non-biblical records attesting to the event. There are eyewitnesses of the event. Jesus appeared alive and well three days later. There are eyewitnesses of his activity. That has to be investigated from a distance of 2,000 years.
We have to do something with the dead man himself whom eyewitness asserted was resurrected to life.
Nothing.
Where does it say it was written by John? Furthermore, where did he learn to read and write? As far as we know, Christ's followers were illiterate.
It waa slightly off topic, yes.
Yes. Everyone generally agrees that the Romans killed Jesus. That is not in question.
But this is in question. The eyewitnesses to this event were either old or dead by the time the events were written down by a third party.
How does one investigate and confirm that a supernatural event took place 2,000 years ago?
Okay. That’s a valid and honest response. Thanks for taking a few minutes of your time to watch them.
It isn't because I want to do nothing. It's because I can't solve a 2,000 year old cold case involving a supernatural event.
The forensic tools which detectives use to solve cold cases can help us decide whether or not the testimony about the event is believable. As the ministry which posted one of the videos bragged - I don’t like it that it did - that ministry knows of 59 atheists who have used the tools and became believers.
I wasn’t a cold case detective in my government working career but I routinely used some of the cold case forensic writing analysis tools to help me investigate potential cases of criminal activity. I was one of a handful of state employees who were selected to be given some basic training by the FBI. [I’m semi-famous for solving one case in particular in a court of inquiry involving multiple millions of dollars. The politicians involved were mixed on whether to support my analysis or not. After some heated conversation - some wanted me to be terminated by my employer and some wanted my employer to back my evaluation - a compromise was reached. Earth excavations were done by an independent third party - if they found what I claimed was buried in the ground but couldn’t visually see was true I would be vindicated, but if they found what I claimed was buried in fact wasn’t then I would be terminated. I was vindicated by the excavation and subsequently heralded in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper, and on various Atlanta radio and television stations. The public was never told how I did it and certainly didn’t know about the deliberations that went on behind closed doors in high places. One attorney called me “the engineer with X-ray vision” - which of course was completely false and misleading. The only thing citizens ever knew is that the state had saved them a large amount of money and prevented a future environmental disaster from happening.]
If you have to be there yourself in order to decide if written testimony about an incident, any incident, is believable, then you won’t ever believe it.
The reported resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a 2,000 year old supernatural event that calls for a decision.
Using every tool at our disposal to evaluate the reported incident is a logical response to help us reach a decision, but no one should ever be forced to do it.
Is there a guarantee that everyone who uses these forensic skills will make the same decision? No.
Using every tool at our disposal to evaluate the reported incident is a logical response to help us reach a decision, but no one should ever be forced to do it.
Is there a guarantee that everyone who uses these forensic skills will make the same decision? No.
Behold
Well-Known Member
What cult, commentary, or dishonest forum member, told you that the eyewitnesses who wrote the Gospels, were not?
Last edited:
How so? We have no reference on how to even measure the authenticity of a supernatural event. Modern day detectives are in the buisness of proving someone was murdered and died of a natural cause, such as a bullet or knife wound.
59 atheists out of all the atheists in the world. Yeah, I wouldn't brag about it either. :)
True. That's why it's called faith. In more mundane stories, such as Jesus giving what for to the Pharisees, I'm inclined to take the bible at it's word. However, when we venture into the supernatural, that's when I become skeptical. Why? Because such things don't happen today. But they sure seemed to happen a whole hell of a lot back then.
As our collective knowledge has increased throughout history, the number of recorded supernatural incidents has sharply decreased. I sense a connection there. A good example would be people that suffer with epilepsy. In the time of Jesus, most people, and perhaps even Jesus himself, believed that this behavior was caused by demonic possession.
The author identifies himself as a participant in his writing.
At home, or in a synagogue, or in a school.
I don’t how you arrived at that conclusion. The apostles are reading / studying scripture and writing letters.
Why isn’t it in question? Why does everyone generally agree? They weren’t there. They didn’t see it happen. They aren’t eyewitnesses. But there are people who were and we read their written accounts of it. There were people who weren’t but heard and read the reports of people who were. They in turn wrote about it and talked about it. We, just like everyone else, have to evaluate it from a distance - in our case, a distance of 2,000 years.
Why believe part of what is written but not all of what is written?
Are you predisposed against the testimony given by old eyewitnesses? The incident I told you about in post #10 happened about 30 years ago. I still remember it vividly. There are still people alive who remember the incident and could attest to it in person if they were asked. Will you decide not to believe me, or them, because you were told about it long after the event took place?
Dead people don’t give interviews to a third party. If I were to drop dead this evening, it wouldn’t alter what I reported 30 years ago (my reports from the are still on file in government archives), nor what I reported to you less than an hour ago.
The detective - who was an atheist when he began looking into the New Testament writings - is telling us how he did it.
What is the rationale for not using the same tools the atheist used - in the routine conduct of the duties of his profession - in conducting an evaluation of the New Testament?
Supernatural events have been reported throughout history. The resurrection of Jesus is one in a long line of supernatural events.
The atheist detective became involved in the business of examining the events surrounding the murder of Jesus, both before it happened and after it had taken place.
How many atheists do you think are ever going to take the time to use the skills to examine it?
You aren’t an atheist. You have a big advantage over them.
Much of what Jesus did was supernatural. His enemies attributed it to demonic influence. His followers attributed it to God.
We’re talking here about a dead man being brought back to life. People said they personally interacted with him after he died. They were, as someone else has already pointed out, prepared to be persecuted, tortured and tormented, willing to die for their testimony rather than to recant.
They believed it is true. Now the question becomes, will we believe them?
P.S.
What I told you about the incident in Atlanta which occurred 30 years ago, though not a supernatural event, is true - but I’m not willing to die for it. I am willing to die for the reported supernatural event surrounding Jesus 2,000 years ago.
Last edited:
Behold
Well-Known Member
Actually it was quite common for apostles letters to be read in local assemblies.
In fact, Peter had Paul's letters, and wrote about this in 2 Peter........ that later became Paul's NT Epistles.
Paul had some of their letters.
Here is what Peter wrote.......
"""For we have not followed cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were EYEWITNESSES of His majesty."""""
Here is what John wrote :
""""That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life"""""
It was an invitation and invitations may be accepted or declined. You said you watched the three video clips and I believed what you wrote. Your testimony rings true to me. You decided not to try it for yourself. That’s good enough for me. It doesn’t change anything between us.
The gospel of John is generally believed to have been written 30 or more years after the death of Christ. It's unlikely that John was still alive when his gospel was written.
Not all of the apostles. Literacy in the ancient world was uncommon for peasants. Paul was obviously literate, and I think Matthew was as well.
While there are no contemporary Roman accounts of the crucifixion of Christ, there are the accounts in the bible and non-contemporary accounts of this period that mention Jesus. While some may think that Jesus Christ was a fictitious figure that never existed, I think they're wrong.
For the reason Thomas Jefferson wrote his own bible that excluded all of the supernatural stuff. Testimonies about natural occurring events are easier to take at face value because they are mundane and we are witness to them everyday. However, supernatural testimonies are more difficult to take at face value because they simply do not occur in the modern day.
Not at all. I don't care how old a testimony is, I care about it's likelihood to be true. Miracles are an old world phenomenon. They don't happen in the modern day. So naturally, I'm skeptical about such claims. Even claims that are made today by psychics and such. You'll notice they never win the lottery. ;)
I agree.
He's telling us that he wants to believe it in a round about way. In the context of his life's experience, I doubt he has ever seen the seas part, or dead men rise from the grave.
I'm not sure I understand the question.
If John was roughly the same age as the Messiah, and if John wrote his Gospel 30 years after the death of the Messiah, then John would have been around 65 years old. That’s not unlikely.
Luke was a physician.
I was looking at various articles on literacy rates among the Jews living in Galilee in the first century. It may have been more common among peasants than the impression you have. Scholars debate the issue among themselves.
Here is a link to one of the articles I read: What We Know About Education in Galilee During Jesus’ Time
I focused on Galilee because that was Jesus’ base of operation and the common perception - which I think is a misperception - is that Jews living in Galilee were less literate than Jews living in Judaea. I’m looking, in other words, at a worst case scenario.
Let’s go with you think Jesus Christ existed. The Hebrew Bible contains prophecies about him and the New Testament contains reports of eyewitness accounts about him.
The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are replete with reports of supernatural activity. “Easier to take” doesn’t equate to “searching for the truth”.
That’s what the atheist detective cared about. It was the tools of his trade which helped him to decide that the testimony is likely to be true.
Miracles happen every day.
There’s nothing wrong with being skeptical. The detective in the video clips was a skeptic when he began examining the New Testament writings.
The Bible includes accounts of people consulting the dead and condemns the practice.
I didn’t get that from him. What I picked up on was he came to believe it because by employing forensic analysis of the writings he became persuaded that they were telling the truth.
He wasn’t examining the writings from the perspective of his own life experience.
You had indicated that you weren’t going to use the forensic tools the detective used when he was still an atheist to examine the witness preserved in the New Testament writings. I was trying to inquire about your thought process for not giving his approach a try yourself. I’m sorry my question wasn’t clear. I’ll try rephrasing it for clarity:
What do you have to lose by using the technique that the skeptical detective used to evaluate the claims made about Jesus in the New Testament?
In other words, why aren’t you interested in trying it?
Last edited:
Lambano
Well-Known Member
I once attended a workshop on how to use certain tools and methodologies to analyze computer hardware and software failures long after the conditions that produced the failures were gone. The lead guru remarked that forensic failure analysis was akin to looking at some rumpled bedsheets and trying to determine if it was for love or money.
Similar threads
