What is Reddit's opinion of
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
23 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
> That's pretty much it yes. I can't say for sure that it didn't happen but I don't feel like there is a way to reliably convince myself that it did happen either. There are too many assumptions; it happened too long ago.
Someone on another thread shared this book with me: https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/. Do you find the arguments here compelling?
When you have a collection of sources concerning events, you compare consistencies with inconsistencies. While errors do exist in our compiled volume called the Bible, the consistencies overwhelm them. We have a really good idea of the details of the events. The Bible should be treated no differently than any other investigation.
>well, in this case, one leads to the other. the evidence of those phenotypical and genotypical changes maps -- through several independent means -- to a tree of common ancestry.
No, it's extrapolation beyond the observed scope, and therefore no longer based on t the evidence. Demonstrating that a labrador and a poodle share an ancestor is not the same as presuming without evidence that cats and oaks share an ancestor.
>in the religious example, historical jesus studies doesn't necessarily lead to a faith position
Just like in the example about religious evolutionism.
>it indeed frequently complicates it.
That isn't what I hear. I'm not aware of any historical evidence about Jesus that goes contrary to the faith claims. A detective even wrote a book about how he approached Christianity as he would a crime scene and concluded that the faith evidence is sound. Here's the Amazon link.
Yeah I can understand that for sure.
For me (I'm a Christian) the thing is, we have this reliable eyewitness testimony of Jesus and his miracles (in the Gospels) - they all agree and insofar as we have archaeological evidence it confirms them. There's plenty of internal agreement and we have independent non-biblical corroboration of much of what they describe
as an aside, there was an atheist cold-case homicide detective who applied his investigative skills to the gospels and came out the other side affirming that they are reliable - he wrote a great book about what he found
then you have Joseph Smith. he claimed to perform a miracle, there were no eyewitnesses to the miracle, and he couldnt replicate the miracle.
To me, God gives us plenty to know that He exists just by beholding creation - and then on top of that he sent His Son to take our punishment in the single most lavish act of love ever displayed. Then he gave us evidence for that too and made sure it was propagated (the NT documents have thousands more copies than any other ancient document at all - so we can check them for accuracy easily)
So he gives us plenty of info to find Him and know Him, but not so much that He overrides our free will, because love must be freely given.
So I think to combat the truth of God you have Satan leading people like Joseph Smith into creating false versions of the truth, because hey, most ex Mormon/ex JW/etc people have no interest going forward in hearing about Christianity.
I would actually recommend this book to you
Cold Case Christianity - J Warner Wallace
J Warner Wallace was a cold case detective that did an empirical analysis base on cold case research techniques on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think it would be worth the look.
>Which is useless when you have no good reason to indicate you towards who this devotion should be given.
This is a completely different debate. If you're trying to go through the "God doesn't exist" argument, then it's not the same thing. For that i'd probably advise studying the historical data on Jesus and His ministry.
>I'd be interested in that.
There are many arguments for God. I won't be listing all of them here obviously. A few examples are the analysis of Jesus life (this book is one of those analysis through the lens of a former atheist and homicide detective using logic inferences as he did in the murders/crimes). Other is the moral argument, beautifully explored in the C.S. Lewis book Mere Christianity, etc. The youtube channel i sent before has many interesting videos on scientific evidence for design of the universe.
>We didn't. According yo your beliefs, our ancestors did.
Yes, i believe that because i understand human kind. We sin all the time. Did you ever lie to someone? Did you ever stole something? Did you ever mistreat anyone? I honestly did. Then we're sinners and we have no business to be in the presence of a perfect being. We're utterly imperfect.
>The whole sacrifice thing was kinda pointless imo. He is GOD. You don't need to do anything to pay any debt. Just make the rules. Just decide "Ok the debt is erased" and it's done.
But then He wouldn't be just... That's precisely point. If there's good and evil then there's also justice. And whoever commits an infraction (does bad or wrong things) has to be punished. That's literally how we were created to think - it's something innate to our nature to be able to differenciate good and evil and to attribute punishment to infractions.
Jesus lived a life here on Earth, He died on a cross for our sins and was resurrected from the dead. That isn't a delusion, it is a historical fact which can be verified by examining the evidence. I recommend this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696
Tacitus' words on the crucifixion of Christ are widely considered accurate. Josephus and Mara bar Serapion also record events surrounding Christ and the crucifixion. As a result of these and other evidences historical scholars (regardless of personal theistic position) agree that the person referenced as Jesus C hrist by us moderns did in fact exist.
There is ... vigorous argument around the veracity of the core of the four gospels. I found Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels very interesting because an atheist cold-case forensic analyst set out to prove the Gospels were false. Instead he became convinced they are factual eyewitness accounts.
>Does Cold Case Christianity represent the best case for an evidenced Jesus?
YES! It represents the best case for the evidence of Jesus and his claims that I've ever read, by far. The evidence and analysis are all there for you to read if you're willing to look. What's stopping you?
The kindle version is only 2.99. You could be reading it on your phone or tablet within minutes. What are you waiting for?
''Ya, its definitely the easiest to do nofap when you are busy and have other things to do that are meaningful that can distract you. What sorts of things are you doing now to fill your time to help w the nofap?''
Nothing much and here is the problem. I am going to do a trade thing pretty soon but currently I am essentially a NEET.
''Yeah, it is puzzling that the disciples chose to give their lives for Jesus after they had all fallen away. However it's definitely a leap to say that proves that Christianity is true though, as I'm sure you've heard''
Its not like suddenly hundreds of people suddenly claims that they saw the risen Christ. Unless something happened to cause them to believe that it happened.
I understand individuals being delusional but not all at the same time, mass hallucinations simply does not happen.
Its not like a resurrection story is believable even in the ancient world unless you actually see the person. But until then until a better explanation is put out I will remain a Christian.
''People do a lot of things that we don't understand, and it can be hard to ask one to accept that miraculous events explain these events since most often normal events can eventually be found to explain such circumstances. Now since we are dealing with something 2000 years ago, it's not like we can investigate the issue.''
For more information I recommend you check out this book: http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696
This detective helped me a lot as I'm very straight facts too:
You'll love the book Cold Case Christianity . It explains how the Gospels are very different, not copies of anything, and how they are eyewitness accounts of the same events. There's enough details to make them different and enough interlocking details that they fill in each other's missing holes that most people wouldn't have noticed.
To answer your question, we should treat the entire Bible
>as if it was absolute and written by God himself
Oops, that was supposed to be Cold Case Christianity. https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=cold+case+christianity&qid=1627609688&sr=8-2
Thanks for keeping an open mind. I don't see that often in these discussions. If you're open to reading more, I recommend Cold Case Christianity. It's written by a homicide detective and former atheist.
>Evidence does point to the historical consensus.
No, it doesn't. It points to the Bible being true. The "historical consensus" is maintained by refusing to honestly consider the evidence, just as you're doing now.
> I don't feel the need to read a book that has been shown to have serious flaws.
Flaws have not been shown, they've been alleged. You would have no way of knowing, since you're just trusting the critics rather than checking it out for yourself.
​
> I like evidence. If I get evidence that will change my mind, I'm happy to change it.
No you don't. You like scholarly consensus, and you like to feel you're a part of that club. If you really liked evidence, you'd check it out by reading this book. Then you could follow his references for further in-depth study if needed.
> I can pick and choose books that are well-regarded.
Well regarded by whom? The only opinion that matters is God's. Again, you've shown your hand and it's a losing hand.
>I prefer to read primary sources, and papers and books written by actual scholars, not just popular books written by non-professionals.
"Actual scholars"? This is a No True Scottsman and an argument from authority in one. CCC may be popular level, but it's very good. If you need further academic study after reading it, you can follow his citations.
>If the scientific consensus is that the Earth is spherical, and all evidence points that way, then I'm going to ignore the whackos who believe that the Earth is flat, whether they've written a book or not.
The historical evidence points squarely in the direction of the Bible being trustworthy. You clearly are not studying the evidence, but rather you're indoctrinating yourself with the so-called "scholarly consensus".
Give me your explanation of the Gospels. We'll see how sound it is.
>God or man, if you write a book designed to be rejected by the vast majority of people, that's kind of silly. Why bother, then? If accepting a book invalidates it, then that's even worse.
God wants the book to be rejected, yes. By those in whose nature it is to reject it (the arrogant). "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." This world is God's harvest field. God has designed the Bible to be the instrument of dividing his harvest. If you reject the Gospel, you are the chaff. If you accept it, you are the wheat. Get it?
>I've read the Bible with an open mind; I have done a lot of soul-searching, but it did not speak to me.
You've already shown here that your mind is far from open. So closed is it in fact, that you cannot be bothered with a short, popular-level book that happens to lay forth the case better than any other I've read.
You can get a used paper copy for as cheap as $8, shipping included, on Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/
>Do you want to believe in the Quran?
I have read the Quran for myself, and that's why I know to reject it.
Shadow banned? It's still there for me. Copy/pasting below:
>How do you know, that the directly received knowledge is reliably true?
I examine the evidence available to me, and it matches up.
>Is it possible that the authors of the New Testament read the Old Testament and deliberately wrote the narrative in a way to make it fit with the prophecies?
No, for numerous reasons. First, that would represent a deliberate conspiracy to deceive people by creating a hoax. Men do not die for what they know to be a hoax. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose by creating a hoax surrounding Jesus, and they proclaimed this Jesus starting in Jerusalem--the city wherein it would be the easiest for people to falsify their claims. Nearly all of the apostles went to their deaths at the hands of the Romans, via torture, without ever admitting to a hoax, and no one was able to come forth with any 'smoking gun' evidence of a hoax that would have nipped this new movement in the bud by showing it to be a hoax (like say, the body of Jesus Christ for example). They would have had no motive for remaining faithful unto death, if they knew it was all a lie. All they had to do was say 'Caesar is Lord' and they could have gone free.
Second: many of the facts that surround Jesus are independently testified from hostile sources that did not accept Jesus as Messiah. See: coldcasechristianity.com and specifically:https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1434704696/
I thought that Cold Case Christianity was an excellent book tracing J Warner Wallace's journey from skepticism to belief. He was a could case detective in LA, and set out to investigate the claims of Christians.
| Yet countless people, when doing this, receive no answer.
I don't concede that for a second. If you seek Him you will find Him
| Countless other people of other religions make the claim that their | deity does the same. Same goes for people who have left religion; | they're a totally new people with new lives.
I don't dispute that people from other religions make similar claims. I wasn't saying this was the main line of evidence, but it is an evidence. Jesus promises that we will be born again, and it is true. Mainly, I was appealing to someone struggling in their faith to have a benchmark to look at to see if it matches in their own life.
Christianity makes the historical claim that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. This can be investigated and you can come to a conclusion based on the evidence. There is also the evidence that Jesus fulfilled dozens of Messianic prophecies uniquely. I suggest this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696
| I assume you don't think those are evidence that their claims are | real, correct?
I have investigated all of the other religions; Christianity was actually the last one I came to, and I didn't grow up in it. I came to it with an open mind, and I have found its truth claims to be true, not only in my own life, but historically and otherwise. But it isn't really about disproving all of the other religions. If the truth claims of Jesus Christ are true, they are all unequivocally wrong.
> Was soll der Schwachsinn überhaupt bedeuten? Kompletter Unsinn.
Es ist irrational und unhöflich etwas was man zugibt nicht zu verstehen, von vorneherein einfach als Schwachsinn abzutun.
Wir können mit den Naturgesetzen nicht alles vorhersagen. Z.B. können Naturgesetze keine Gedanken vorher sagen.
> Bedeutet aber, dass Gott nen ziemlich beschissener Designer wäre, würde er existieren. Ziemlich nett von ihm uns so schlecht zu bauen und noch nebenbei nen Haufen Krankheiten, Gebrechen und evolutionäre Überbleibsel einzubauen.
Zum wiederholten Male. Gott hat uns nicht schwach erschaffen, sondern uns nur wenig unter seinem Angesicht erschaffen. Wir haben uns selbst schwach gemacht, indem wir uns von ihm der Quelle des Lebens in einer freien Entscheidung abgewandt haben, weil wir unser eigener Gott sein wollten.
> Du kannst "naturwissenschaftliche Erkenntnis" nicht definieren wie es dir passt. Es wird sowohl mit reproduzierbaren Ergebnissen als auch mit empirischen gearbeitet. Du redest dir da was ein was einfach nicht stimmt.
Ich definiere Naturwissenschaft nicht wie es mir passt. Empirie heißt ja schlicht Erfahrung. Wenn mit reproduzierbaren Ergebnissen gearbeitet wird, werden die selbstverständlich auch empirisch erfasst. Sowohl Duden als auch Wikipedia definieren Naturwissenschaft als Wissenschaft die reproduzierbare Vorgänge beschreibt:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturwissenschaft
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturwissenschaft#Empirie_und_Experiment
http://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Naturwissenschaft
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exakte_Wissenschaft
> Real existierende Dinge wie die unterschiedlichen Genpools isolierter Arten, Fossilien etc. in die Ecke der Laberfächer zu verbannen ist einfach lächerlich. Es gibt durchaus reproduzierbare Belege für die synthetische Evolutionstheorie und diese würdest du mit etwas naturwissenschaftlichem Verständnis auch akzeptieren. Natürlich gibt es nicht den "einen" Beweis für die Evolutionstheorie, aber zigtausende, ach was Millionen kleine Belege die sie unterstützen. Untersuchung der Verwandschaftsverhältnisse und der Vorfahren durch Anatomie, DNA und was auch immer.
Wenn die synthetische ET reproduzierbar ist, dann hat sie selbstverständlich einen Platz im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht Biologie, wenn nicht nicht. Religion und Philosophie sind keine Laberfächer. Die Naturwissenschaft selbst basiert auf philosophischen Prämissen und unser gesamtes Gespräch ist voller philosophischer Aussagen und Fragestellungen:
> Es ist ekelhaft, dass du da überhaupt gegen argumentierst während du an Geschichten aus nem 2000 Jahre alten Buch glaubst was so ziemlich die Antithese von "naturwissenschaftlicher Arbeitsweise" ist. Du kannst nicht die Rosinen rauspicken und was von Reproduzierbarkeit labern während du an so einen Unsinn glaubst.
Naturwissenschaft schließt wie oben gezeigt per Definition aus singuläre Ereignisse zu beschreiben. Sie hat also per Definition nichts zur Möglichkeit von Wundern zu sagen. Ob die Evangelien wahrheihtsgemäß über Jesus berichten ist eine Frage die Philosophen, Geschichtswissenschaftler und Juristen mit Hilfe von Indizienbeweisen beantworten können. Neben den obigen Links noch zwei Literaturtipps:
https://www.amazon.de/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696/
https://www.amazon.de/Fall-Jesus-Journalist-Suche-Wahrheit/dp/3865919227/
> Übrigens gibt es über die Entstehung des Lebens (an rauchenden Schloten tief im Meer) selbstverständlich nur Theorien, aber es behauptet auch niemand dass diese die absolute Wahrheit sind. Sie gehören trotzdem in die naturwissenschaftlichen Fächer, da sie deutlich mehr Substanz haben als Märchengeschichten ausm Bibelgarten. Sie entsprechen dem aktuellem naturwissenschaftlichem Wissensstand, nicht dem von vor 2000 Jahren.
Doch es behaupten Leute, dass diese wahr sind. Z.B. Atheisten. Und mein Biolehrer war einer. Sofern das entstehen von belebter aus unbelbter Materie nicht reproduziert worden ist, sind Theorien darüber postfaktisch und im Philosophie, Religionsunterricht zu behandeln.
> Gibt auch hier auf reddit genug arme Amis die sich darüber beschweren. Gib den Religiösen zuviel Macht und wir enden wieder im 19. Jahrhundert und vergessen die ganzen Erkenntnisse über das Leben die wir bisher machen konnten. Das unterstützt du. Denk daran, wenn du weiter deinen Bullshit teilst und versuchst noch mehr Menschen in dieses System mit reinzureißen.
Wie gesagt ist im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht wie Biologie kein Raum für Weltanschauung, Metaphysik, Übernatürliches. D.h. sowohl Kreationismus als auch Atheismus und Naturalismus haben darin nichts verloren.
Dein Bild von der Rolle des Christentums im Westen ist nicht besonders differenziert. Interessant dazu sind u.a. ein Buch das kürzlich erschien
und der Wikipedia Artikel über die Rolle des Christentums in der Entwicklung der Zivilisation:
> According to the Merton Thesis there was a positive correlation between the rise of puritanism and protestant pietism on the one hand and early experimental science on the other.[101] The Merton Thesis has two separate parts: Firstly, it presents a theory that science changes due to an accumulation of observations and improvement in experimental techniques and methodology; secondly, it puts forward the argument that the popularity of science in 17th-century England and the religious demography of the Royal Society (English scientists of that time were predominantly Puritans or other Protestants) can be explained by a correlation between Protestantism and the scientific values.[102] In his theory, Robert K. Merton focused on English Puritanism and German Pietism as having been responsible for the development of the scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. Merton explained that the connection between religious affiliation and interest in science was the result of a significant synergy between the ascetic Protestant values and those of modern science.[103] Protestant values encouraged scientific research by allowing science to study God's influence on the world and thus providing a religious justification for scientific research.[101]
Gute Nacht! :)
> Prove that this man existed and that he did those things. You can't, just like Muslims can't prove that Mohamed flew to Heaven on a winged horse, and just like Hindus haven't been able to prove that reincarnation is real.
We have eye witness testimonies. There was a detective who works cold cases, and would convict people of crimes based on people's testimonies. He was an Atheist investigating the case for Christ. He found that the people's testimonies lined up, and he would consider them as viable evidence in court, and he came to the conclusion that it was all real.
Why do you not believe in the gospel accounts? They were hand written accounts by people who witnessed an event, or people who spoke to those people. Some of the things Jesus spoke about is verifiable today. As I have pointed out about the Holy Spirit guiding people, and people being able to heal and cast out demons in Jesus' name.
There's a new book out called Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels. It's supposed to be really good for those struggling with belief. I would encourage you to read it. The book won't save you, but it might help you get past some of your intellectual hurdles. Lord bless you.
That’s a good question. I would recommend that the op examines the evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Here is a great place to start:
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels https://www.amazon.com/dp/1434704696/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Nv2gDbYT5YDQQ
Popular alternatives to Cold-Case Christianity: A H...
