I have several of Jim’s books. But the one that I think everyone should read is Person of Interest. Amazing stuff! He talks about the fuse which is the time line before the birth of Christ and what was going on in history. Then comes the explosion, Christ on earth. After that the fall out. What happens next. What changes because of this explosion. The life of Jesus changes the world forever. His light is the enlightenment of mankind. All of this is explained in great detail in Jim’s book, Person of Interest. Dear Lord please let J. Warner Wallace continue his work. Keep him safe and healthy. I think he still has much to contribute that you Lord have given him to share with us. Amen!
Such great stuff , l wish l would have come across this when my dad was still alive . He was an atheist Al my life, but l never was. I wasn't raised in the church , God has shown me that He is there. Just before my dad died l finally got him to see the light.
@@dianawise203 Wow, so gullible. But okay. Hey, look I've got this bridge.... It's nice to hear an honest Christian admit they're unconcerned with the truth and don't mind being conned. I wish more Christians were as honest as you.
... Jim made this video 6 years ago; it's just excellent - worth a million views, but - in this post enlightenment civilisation of ours few people seem to appreciate: enlightenment Thank you, Jim; you've got that toughness - someone to stand with when the going gets rough. Kind regards Kim
I appreciate the gods not dead 2 what he said I agree that bible is true but one thing that bothers me Jim is when are you going to pray before the speech or speak about the Holy Spirit which teaches all things.. The things of God don't always have to make sense that is why it's by Faith not by sight !
One of the reasons the bible is so important is because it allows you to actually read the writings of the original witnesses. Someone might argue that they were brainwashed into deeply believing by a charismatic cult leader but we actually have the words of the witnesses and can judge for ourselves whether or not the disciples were coherent witnesses of actual events. The rambling of cultists is fundamentally different from the deep wisdom of the bible, as different as bitter poison is from clear water, and that is how we know the witnesses were and are reliable.
The chain of custody is more dependent on the early part than the later part? Why? That's certainly not the way a chain works. All links are equal. So how does knowing less about the purity of an idea as time passes somehow support forensic science? The data disintegrates, but it doesn't matter? That's not science.
The earlier part is more important to maintain textual integrity because that is the part most susceptible to manipulation. Once far ranging duplicates and copies are achieved, the failure of one text doesn't affect the integrity of the whole. Capisce?
If the current document matches the document from right after it was written/the event took place, then we know the current doc is unaltered. What happened in the middle doesn’t matter from an accuracy perspective. In theory, maybe it got messed with in 500 A.D. in bad faith, but was corrected in 900 A.D. that’s fascinating, but so long as the current piece of evidence is a match for the original, the evidential reliability is valid.
Intelligent design is what he is saying. Intelligent design is faith. It is not science. He is saying faith proves faith. Great if you’re presenting as a pastor but not so much as ‘cold case’ detective forensics.
All theistic and atheistic beliefs on origins and the existence of God are a form of faith. Attempts to justify otherwise, by either side, are fallacy. But faith can be logical or illogical. This is a case to support the logic/reasonableness of Christianity. There is a fine case to be made for it. It will not be compelling to those deep in the faith of scientific materialism….until they are ready. It often happens post 35 years old in my subjective observation.
Hmmn, JWW has me a bit puzzled; he makes a good case for the trustworthiness of the Gospels, and yet as a 'Protestant' he appears to have overlooked things that Jesus is recorded within the New Testament/Gospels to have said and instructed - including transubstantiation, 'This IS MY BODY', this IS MY BLOOD' - also "I tell you truly, unless you eat of My body and drink of My blood you will not have life in you" - John 6:53. The issue of ONE CHURCH - in front of the cave known as the gates of hades/hell Jesus gave Simon Peter/Petras the authority to speak in His name, and by inference and tradition that would have been understood by Peter and the Apostles, an authority handed down to successors, until that 'Key' gets handed back at the second coming of Christ - upon this 'rock' {singular referencing to authority] I will build My Church {singular]. "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: whose sins you shall retain {withold forgiveness from], they are retained {witheld]" - John 20:23 [The institution of the sacrament of Confession] How many different 'Protest-ant' churches do 'we' now have, and 'authorities' and 'interpretations', since Martin Luther and Henry VIII, Calvin and the like decided to do their own thing?
I would ask you the same question. Where did you get those ridiculous ideas that you quoted, "in front of the cave known as the gates of hades/hell Jesus gave Simon Peter/Petras the authority to speak in His name, and by inference and tradition that would have been understood by Peter and the Apostles, an authority handed down to successors, until that 'Key' gets handed back at the second coming of Christ..." I don't believe that's even biblical. That specific quote.
Jesus often spoke in metaphor. “Eat my body” “drink my blood” is metaphor for accepting and putting faith in His sacrifice. I think the scenario with Peter you are referring to is when Jesus renames him “cephas” or “rock” (the rock on which He will build his church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it). He says this in response to Peter professing Jesus as the Christ, son of the living God. He’s basically saying that His church will be built around the fact that He is the son of God, the messiah. Those that recognize that Jesus is THE messiah and son of God at least have their foot in their door when it comes to membership in the Christian church. See what I’m saying? That profession is the bedrock of Jesus’ church, which is why Jesus renamed Peter “rock” (because he made that claim about Jesus)
It’s doesn’t matter how many denominations are there. What’s important is what “mere Christianity” is and that’s Jesus died and rose again and who he claims to be. That’s the heart of Christianity.
I believe that other verses about the same topic should be accounted for and taken into the whole picture. So did the other books keep it at this, or did they elaborate on what he said? They did when Jesus said "Do this in remembrance of me". So it is an act of remembering and staying focused on the work he did. Eating and Drinking him is also elaborated in John where Jesus further explains who it is that eats and drinks. He states that he who comes to him is the one who eats, and he who believes in him, is the one who drinks. : )
I gave this 35 minutes on my drive home and I give up. This is nonsense, pointless dribble. His entire premise is that the age of an account is primarily based on what the alleged author does or doesn’t include in his account.
It's reasonable to assume they would add any evidence to support the claims they were making. That's his point they weren't alive when the temple was destroyed or the city of Jerusalem was sacked. Which we know from other historical documents that these events happend around 66AD to 70AD
That is what most historians use to reasonably give a date range for a document or several documents. I say most because there’s probably that one historian that just denies such a reasonable approach but I digress. With the emission of details of a specific event, we have no reason to say the documents dates later unless there are details of later events with far more evidence to support the late dating. For the gospels and Acts, the deaths of the most important Christian figures besides Jesus was Paul and Jesus’ brother James. These were not included in Acts, nor was there any detail about the destruction of the temple. It is possible that Luke wrote the document after these events, but not evidentially reasonable. Also the Olivet discourse doesn’t have enough historical to assume a late dating. Except it saying that people suffer due to the destruction of the temple, it is extremely vague and gets details wrong if it was supposed to be ex eventu. One detail is when the destruction was supposed to take place. Jesus commands them to pray for it not to take place in the winter, but the actual destruction took place in the summer. These are contradictory statements. Also Luke and Matthew of all people would have mentioned the destruction of the temple because they include fulfilled prophecies by Jesus and this would be an extremely credible one for people of their time. They don’t even mention it. Therefore, it is unreasonable to conclude a late dating and reasonable to conclude a more nuisances early dating
I think that this case is the base of hate war on religions .The refuted jews shold apologised the Allah for thier missconception fath that they had success the Essa as hanging after them on crossifixtion .Because Allah released the Essa as and thier mother respectfull persanality and informed thier death after passing long life .And Christhens also believed on Essa as called them God fatheer and mother .God Almighty rejects thier fith And informes that i am one no one is my partner i have no nead any son and niether i am any father of any humans .Unfortunatley the muslim also conccept the Essa as has sitting alive on the sky and they will came in last era .But God rejects thier faith .Because many kuffari Mecca and refuted yahoud and Qureesh had demanded to Hazrat Mohammad saw that you go on the sky and bring so education books for us came infront of us eyes .Allah Teaches The answer of refuted peoples against that You Said them your Enimies Never any peoplel went on sky befor this time nor i can go .Because Allah the God is fullfill his in his promises do not go against his promises .If we submit the conccept of christen and muslims ulamah of this century are right fiath then you will go against the promised .And refuted peoples alligation or blame on Allah orders that Allah may go agaist his promises .Never Allah go his promises mumtaneh this for Allah .Do not wait for Essa as coming agian Allah can appointed the Nabi in HZrat Mohammad Saw Ummah other humankind as Immam Miahdi which has came for you wellfare .Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Masiah sani in 14 Th century .jazakallah .
There is biblical justification to disregard biblical hell as so much hot air: God can force people's constitutions to change even if they start out opposed to him, which apparently means he isn't bothered by any need to "respect" human freewill: 33 "Immediately the word concerning Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled; and he was driven away from mankind and began eating grass like cattle, and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair had grown like eagles' feathers and his nails like birds' claws. (Dan. 4:33 NAU) And hell cannot be literal because God can use his magic wand to make sin, for example adultery and its consequent death-penalty disappear into nothingness: 13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. (2 Sam. 12:13 NAU) At my blog I show that J. Warner Wallace fails miserably with his attempts to make the evangelical doctrine of hell-fire sound more plausible to those who naturally recoil from it. Wallace never takes the time to consider that maybe one reason even Christians can hate the idea of eternal flaming hell is precisely because this sense of justice contradicts the sense of morality that the Holy Spirit placed in their hearts. Wallace is not writing for anybody at all, except other bible-believing evangelicals, who adopt most of his presuppositions anyway. He only cares that they buy his crap, he does not care about the fact that his arguments evaporate like butter thrown into the sun, when confronted by informed atheists like myself. Wallace is no less of a shameless self-promoter than apostle Paul. Indeed, how could the Holy Spirit have guided Christians into theological truth for those 20 centuries before Wallace's pay-as-you-go "forensic faith" gimmicks? turchisrong.blogspot.com/2017/09/this-is-my-reply-to-article-by-j.html
@@georgewagner7787 "If you're an atheist, why are you quoting the Bible?" ----------to show that there can be no rational purpose to modern day evangelism or apologetics. What do today's unbelievers have to worry about? Biblical "hell" is nothing to be afraid of even if it is real. There is no danger in disregarding your "god".
I don't know where you got that from but God doesn't force anyone to believe in him or change, you always make the decision in everything you do. So freewill is real. People hate the idea of hell because they don't understand it, it doesn't contradict it actually makes sense, not to mention. Hell wasn't made for humans but Satan and his minions, who will be there someday. God doesn't "make" sin, people do. (he also is a God not a fairy so there's no wand but I get the sarcasm) You can quote the Bible but if you don't fully understand then it doesn't matter
The ingrained bigotry of evangelicalism. They make some fantastic cases for Christ, then out of the blue they feel the need to try to trash the Book of Mormon, with limited knowledge or information on this topic. It’s so sad that you have to trash another person’s faith just to try to booster your own. Lee Strobel does the same. Besides this there has been some commendable research for this talk and book.
Well I mean it is Mormonism. Don’t have to trash it but there’s not much going there besides false teachings and prophets. Simply not the truth. I did witness a miracle from the Father in Heaven. I saw the Holy Spirit myself directly after I prayed for the first time. A large spherical ball of light like an Angel. Joseph Smith was a false prophet and teacher that embraced polygamy. Which goes against the Fathers law. There’s not bigotry in myself but the truth. I’m not going to hate a Mormon but I’m not going to agree with their false teachings. I grew up an Atheist and studied philosophy and world religions. This is a good case for Christ and there’s multiple others you can make on the Apostles. My experience is eye opening. Whether or not Joseph Smith saw what he did I know I saw what I say and what I prayed to the Father. Peace and Love.
If his claim that Christianity is true and the Bible is the word of God, then Mormonism can’t be true, since LDS doctrines oppose and contradict the Bible. It’s not trashing another faith as a bigot to simply make the rational conclusion that if Christianity is true and another religion contradicts it - then the other religion must be false if we’re thinking logically
You don't have any way of knowing that he has limited understanding of Mormonism. He may have studied it extensively for all you know. It certainly contradicts historical christianity
Here is an interesting fact. When religious take their vows it is vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. This directly relates to the reasons Jim mentions for crimes....greed, lust and power. Which makes Christianity a non-threatening religion. So why are Christians persecuted? Answer: because the persecuters are the ones after money, sex (abortion, contraception, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, and peodophilia), and power. And the Christian viewpoint threatens that.
> Which makes Christianity a non-threatening religion. ...only if you ignore centuries of war, slavery, persecution, and genocide all done by Christians in the name of Christianity.
Christians are massive drama queens who love to play victims, Christians haven't been persecuted anymore than any other demographic. Christians hugely exaggerate the extent that they've been persecuted. It's the crap about The Romans throwing Christians to lions, it's absolute BS.
When Christians are unable to enjoy special privileges, unable to discriminate against or oppress others, or unable to get away with crimes that others would not, they call that "persecution."
*What is the opinion on J. Warner Wallace's "Cold-Case Christianity"? part 2* 'Pretty awful. Early in the book he goes off on a long spiel about how he never previously supposed that Christianity might just be able to stand up to unbiased scrutiny - and how the only way to really find the truth in a "cold case" is to look at what the evidence points to, with no bias in either direction. The entire rest of the book is endless speculation about how claims of Christianity might be true. Throughout the entire book and in nearly every single argument he makes, he commits the exact same error of extreme bias by first presupposing Christianity is true and then finding (often-roundabout) ways to make the data/arguments fit that truth. The abundant hypocrisy is breathtaking, and I can't believe it slipped past an editor, much less most readers who seem to give it positive reviews. I'm a Christian but his book just leads me farther down a path of doubt than of faith. I was honestly infuriated while reading it. Sure hope this isn't the best we got.' dasbin
I don't have the brain capacity/alertness or the physical ability/health to master this or get out and share it. Your links are all I have. Thank you, J Warner Wallace, for your lectures so I can post them to people on my media.
Wallace should rename this to 'Low Bar Christianity' because that's what he has succeeded at here, lowered the bar for evidence just like literally every other apologist out there. He claims that eyewitnesses are direct evidence but what he's also not taking into account is that eyewitnesses that are used in legal proceedings are vetted and verified before they are taken into court record as admissible evidence. It's clearly obvious that he sought and still seeks to advance his career as an apologist rather than a detective and this is obviously why he's created these low bar arguments that would not be admissible in a court of law without vetting or verification.
He does a lot of stuff that assumes the story is true. Where's the body??? Uh, what body? We have to establish that there was one before we ask where it went.
Trial lawyer here. No, he doesn’t. But his argument certainly isn’t absolute proof. It’s an excellent presentation given the time limitations, both the video itself and the primary evidence being 2 millennia gone. However, the firmest bit of evidence this analysis can show is that 1. Unreasonable to assume the disciples didn’t actually believe it. 2. The New Testament and historical record are consistent with Christianity. It could absolutely have been highly inconsistent, and that would have been a massive blow to the credibility of the faith. He shows it is not(as do many other apologists). It’s not proof that will change a mind that doesn’t want to be changed. And that’s the point…. God wants you to want him. Not be compelled, but to truly seek Him.
