Dear J. Warner Wallace: Please Present Confirmed Eyewitness Testimony for the Resurrection!

Image result for photo of j warner wallace
J. Warner Wallace. Former crime detective, former self-described atheist, current Christian apologist and author.

If you are ever in a discussion with a conservative Christian apologist regarding the veracity of Christianity, he or she will frequently recommend a stack of Christian books for you to read.  Almost invariably, one of those books will be Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace.

Wallace is a former crime detective.  After converting to Christianity, he took up Christian apologetics, using his investigative skills to support Christianity’s central claim, the resurrection of Jesus.  Wallace believes that a thorough evaluation of the evidence would convince any court of law that Jesus of Nazareth truly did rise from the dead.

But there is one big problem:  Wallace’s “case” is built entirely on the assumption that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, and therefore, the four accounts of Jesus resurrection in those books would be admissable in a court of law as primary source documents (eyewitness testimony).  However, Wallace either doesn’t know or ignores the fact that the majority of New Testament scholars do not believe or at least question that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses.  Wallace’s evidence would not be admissable in any court of law.  It is hearsay.

J. Warner Wallace’s case for Christianity fails.

 

 

 

End of post.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Dear J. Warner Wallace: Please Present Confirmed Eyewitness Testimony for the Resurrection!

  1. Wallace did not assume the gospels were eyewitness accounts. He compared the gospels with variations he expected to find in eyewitness accounts from cases he worked on and concluded the gospels were credible eyewitness accounts in that they conformed to the norms associated with eyewitness accounts of current day observed events.

    I have been reading a lot of your stuff Gary and my conclusion is your postulation goes beyond academic interest. You seem to have an axe to grind, for reasons only you know. What you write and the way you write it shows a determination to trash Christianity regardless of reasonableness. You question everything, mostly with no basis.

    How do you know Julius Caesar existed? Is it possible the story of Caesar was the most popular children’s tale of its time and every thing we thought was history is just an old time Dr Seuss book? Yes it is! How do we really know Obama isn’t a martian? We don’t! How can we be sure gravity isn’t trying to pull us into space and we are held here by invisible rabbits? We don’t!

    Face it Gary, you don’t want to believe and you don’t want anyone else too. You are just here to tear down.

    You got the Dawkin’s Delusion.

    Like

    1. Wallace did not assume the gospels were eyewitness accounts. He compared the gospels with variations he expected to find in eyewitness accounts from cases he worked on and concluded the gospels were credible eyewitness accounts in that they conformed to the norms associated with eyewitness accounts of current day observed events.

      Have you read Wallace’s book, cover to cover? I have. Wallace very much believes that the Gospels are primary source documents, written by eyewitnesses or by associates of eyewitnesses. He interviews and quotes fundamentalist/conservative NT scholars (such as Craig Blomberg) as expert witnesses who confirm the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels. He fails to mention that the rest of New Testament scholarship (the overwhelming majority) disagrees with this position.

      In court, the opposing attorney would simply need to call NT Wright to the witness stand, where he would say: “I have no idea who wrote the Gospels, nor does anyone else!” The judge would then not allow the Gospels to be admitted as eyewitness testimony and Wallace’s entire “cold case” would collapse!

      Like

    2. I have been reading a lot of your stuff Gary and my conclusion is your postulation goes beyond academic interest. You seem to have an axe to grind, for reasons only you know. What you write and the way you write it shows a determination to trash Christianity regardless of reasonableness. You question everything, mostly with no basis.

      I accept all majority expert opinion on all issues, including New Testament scholarship. The majority of experts believe that the Empty Tomb is historical, therefore I accept it. Now, let’s see how unbiased YOU are: Are you willing to accept majority expert opinion that the Gospels were NOT written by eyewitnesses nor by the associates of eyewitnesses and that at least one generation separated any witnesses to the life of Jesus and the authors of the Gospels?

      How do you know Julius Caesar existed?

      I trust majority expert opinion, and in the case of the historicity of Julius Caesar, unanimous expert opinion. I also accept the historicity of Jesus due to the fact that most historians (experts) believe he existed. I accept majority expert opinion on all issues…do YOU? Can YOU say that you are consistent, Adam?

      Like

    3. Face it Gary, you don’t want to believe and you don’t want anyone else too. You are just here to tear down. You got the Dawkin’s Delusion.

      Someone who is so biased and whose only intent is to destroy Christianity would not accept positions as fact that hurt his position, such as the historicity of Jesus and the Empty Tomb. Are you consistent, Adam?

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s