Why Cold-Case Skills Can Help You Examine Christianity

[Matthias]

Writings are evidence. AI overview -

“Writings are a primary and crucial form of evidence in many fields, including academia, law, and historical studies. They provide a tangible, reviewable record that can support claims, establish facts, or offer expert opinion. …”

“Writings aren’t evidence” is a non sequitur.

 

[Riven]

“Writings aren’t evidence” is a non sequitur.

They are evidence in so far as someone wrote something down. But they are not evidence that what is written down is true.

 

[Matthias]

They are evidence in so far as someone wrote something down. But they are not evidence that what is written is true.

What is written is evidence that has to be evaluated.

What is written may be true; what is written may be false. It’s still evidence.

When I was called as a witness in court cases, what I wrote in my field reports was always entered as evidence.

 

[Riven]

What is written is evidence that has to be evaluated.

Again, how do we evaluate a supernatural claim? There has to be a way for you to determine what's true and what's false. Otherwise you're living in a subjective reality of your own making.

 

[Matthias]

Again, how do we evaluate a supernatural claim? There has to be a way for you to determine what's true and what's false. Otherwise you're living in a subjective reality of your own making.

Is there a bigger supernatural claim in your mind than the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

 

[Riven]

Is there a bigger supernatural claim in your mind than the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

Why do you answer a question with a question? I ask you something and you dodge.

 

[Matthias]

Why do you answer a question with a question? I ask you something and you dodge.

I haven’t dodged. I’m hoping to find out what you think the biggest supernatural claim in the Bible is. I don’t want to deal with Mickey Mouse. I want to deal with King Kong.

If there is a bigger supernatural claim in your mind than the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, then let’s deal with it.

 

[Riven]

I haven’t dodged. I’m hoping to find out what you think the biggest supernatural claim in the Bible is. I don’t want to deal with Mickey Mouse. I want to deal with King Kong.

If there is a bigger supernatural claim in your mind than the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, then let’s deal with it.

Let's go with that one then.

 

[Matthias]

Let's go with that one then.

Give me your best answer: The supernatural resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth isn’t true because ______.

So far I have in my notes:

1. It’s not true because you weren’t personally there to see it.
2. It’s not true because the Bible cannot be used as evidence.
3. It’s not true because eyewitness testimony isn’t evidence.
4. It’s not true because claims cannot be used as evidence.
5. It’s not true because the NT writers are anonymous and wrote decades after the alleged event is said to have taken place.
6. It’s not true because the alleged event happened a long time ago.
7. It’s not true because you don’t believe supernatural events are possible / not possible to evaluate.
8. It’s not true because the Greeks believed in a pantheon of gods.

Feel free to add any additional reason(s) and correct what I’ve written in my notes if you believe they aren’t accurate summary statements.

 

[Riven]

Give me your best answer: The supernatural resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth isn’t true because ______.

So far I have in my notes:

1. It’s not true because you weren’t personally there to see it.
2. It’s not true because the Bible cannot be used as evidence.
3. It’s not true because eyewitness testimony isn’t evidence.
4. It’s not true because claims cannot be used as evidence.
5. It’s not true because the NT writers are anonymous and wrote decades after the alleged event is said to have taken place.
6. It’s not true because the alleged event happened a long time ago.
7. It’s not true because you don’t believe supernatural events are possible / not possible to evaluate.
8. It’s not true because the Greeks believed in a pantheon of gods.

Feel free to add any additional reason(s) and correct what I’ve written in my notes if you believe they aren’t accurate summary statements.

I didn't say it wasn't true. I said it can't be proven, and because it's a supernatural claim among a sea of supernatural claims, both inside and outside of Christianity, there's no reason to entertain it.

 

[Matthias]

I didn't say it wasn't true.

So then you believe that it could be true.

I said it can't be proven, and because it's a supernatural claim among a sea of supernatural claims, both inside and outside of Christianity, there's no reason to entertain it.

The reason to entertain it is because it could be true.

That takes us back to the alleged event: a man who was dead for three days and three nights was brought back to life.

There is evidence that he was. Wallace invites his readers to examine that evidence and then make a decision.

 

[Matthias]

Even Jews in his day and in ours who don’t believe he is the Messiah believe the crucifixion event happened @Riven. Is that sufficient evidence for you to say that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified 2,000 years ago?

 

[Matthias]

I didn't say it wasn't true. I said it can't be proven …

The disciples of Jesus themselves initially had difficulty believing it was true. Jesus himself proved to them that it is.

 

[Matthias]

Give me your best answer: The supernatural resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth isn’t true because ______.

Since you declined to say flat out that it isn’t true @Riven, give me your best answer to this:

The supernatural resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth could be true because ______.

 

[Matthias]

“The supernatural resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth could be true because there is no evidence.”

How many of my readers are (or might be) persuaded by that?

 

[Riven]

So then you believe that it could be true.

Yes. But I think it's unlikely to be true due to lack of evidence for the supernatural.

The reason to entertain it is because it could be true.

Why is that reason enough? Do you entertain the idea that the Islamic prophet Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse?

That takes us back to the alleged event: a man who was dead for three days and three nights was brought back to life.

There is evidence that he was. Wallace invites his readers to examine that evidence and then make a decision.

We have claims made in the bible that Jesus was resurrected. But where are the Roman accounts of this event? In the gospel of Matthew, the author states that after the crucifixion, many graves in Jerusalem opened and those that were once dead greeted the living.

Now either the dead coming back to life was seen as something of a banality at the time, or it's a fictitious/ highly embellished story. Given that we have no evidence in modern times of people being dead for years and returning to life, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

 

[Matthias]

Yes. But I think it's unlikely to be true due to lack of evidence for the supernatural.

The dead don’t come back to life on their own. That leaves supernatural.

Why is that reason enough?

All possibilities have to be considered.

Do you entertain the idea that the Islamic prophet Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse?

Yes. All possibilities have to be considered and evaluated.

We have claims made in the bible that Jesus was resurrected. But where are the Roman accounts of this event?

See Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.

In the gospel of Matthew, the author states that after the crucifixion, many graves in Jerusalem opened and those that were once dead greeted the living.

Yes.

Now either the dead coming back to life was seen as something of a banality at the time, or it's a fictitious/ highly embellished story.

No to both.

Given that we have no evidence in modern times of people being dead for years and returning to life, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

See above on the dead coming to life on their own. See also other accounts of resurrection of the dead in scripture.

51 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

That’s evidence.

 

[Matthias]

Yes.

Then the case remains open and there is more investigation to be done, unless you just don’t care. (I don’t think you do.)

 

[Matthias]

See Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger.

Why do Roman sources show even the least bit of interest in Jesus? It’s not for the same reason you do @Riven.

 

[Matthias]

From my X / Twitter “For you” feed this morning -

“The stated goal of this gospel is certainty. But the universal human response to the resurrection is perplexity, rejection, and bewilderment.”

(Scott Aniol)

https://x.com/scottaniol/status/2009279301942673443?s=61