A 30-Minute Overview of Cold-Case Christianity

A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels

J. Warner Wallace

• Publisher: David C Cook
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9780830778317
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

You're busy with work, family, and life; but with the new Faith Blueprints series from David C Cook, there is still time to learn from some of the world's best thinkers on the subjects of faith and culture. Faith Blueprints are executive summaries, designed to quickly and efficiently provide you with the main concepts and highlights from some of David C Cook's best books. These blueprints are most effective when used alongside the original book as a quick reference or outline, but they can also be used by themselves. Written by an L. A. County homicide detective and former atheist, Cold-Case Christianity examines the claims of the New Testament using the skills and strategies of a hard-to-convince criminal investigator. Christianity could be defined as a "cold case" it makes a claim about an event from the distant past for which there is little forensic evidence. In Cold-Case Christianity, J. Warner Wallace uses his nationally recognized skills as a homicide detective to look at the evidence and eyewitnesses behind Christian beliefs. Including gripping stories from his career and the visual techniques he developed in the courtroom, Wallace uses illustration to examine the powerful evidence that validates the claims of Christianity. A unique apologetic that speaks to readers' intense interest in detective stories, Cold-Case Christianity inspires readers to have confidence in Christ as it prepares them to articulate the case for Christianity.

Section 1

Learn to Be a Detective

Ten Important Principles Every Aspiring Detective Needs to Master

Chapter 1: Don’t Be A “Know-It-All”

Wallace tells the story of when, as a young detective, he went to his first suspicious death scene with legendary homicide detective Alan Jeffries (all names have been changed in the book). Within seconds of seeing the body and scene, Alan announced that the woman’s killer was her husband.

“I’ve been doing this for a long time, kid,” Alan said as he opened his notebook. “‘Stranger’ murders are pretty rare. That guy’s probably her husband, and in my experience, spouses kill each other. . . . No reason to make it complicated, newbie; most of the time it’s real simple. Find me the husband, and I’ll show you the killer.”

As it turned out, it was a little more difficult than that. We didn’t identify the suspect for another three months, and it turned out to be the victim’s twenty-five-year-old neighbor. He barely knew her but managed to trick the victim into opening her door on the night he raped and killed her. She turned out to be single; the man in the photograph was her brother (he visited occasionally from overseas and kept some of his clothing in her closet). All of Alan’s presuppositions were wrong, and his assumptions colored the way we were seeing the evidence. . . . Luckily, the truth prevailed.

All of us hold presuppositions that can impact the way we see the world around us. I’ve learned to do my best to enter every investigation with my eyes and mind open to all the reasonable possibilities.

Wallace realized he had his own presuppositions that got in the way of his objective exploration of Christianity:

When I was an atheist, I held many presuppositions that tainted the way I investigated the claims of Christianity. . . . What would my partners think if I examined all the evidence in a difficult case and (after failing to identify a suspect) concluded that a ghost or demon committed the murder? They would surely think I was crazy. All homicide investigators presume that supernatural beings are not reasonable suspects, and many detectives also happen to reject the supernatural altogether. Detectives have to work in the real world, the “natural world” of material cause and effect. We presuppose a particular philosophy as we begin to investigate our cases. This philosophy is called “philosophical naturalism.”

Scientists and even historians presuppose that philosophical naturalism is the only acceptable option for interpreting events.

The majority of historical scholars, for example, accept the historicity of the New Testament Gospels, in so far as they describe the life and teaching of Jesus and the condition of the first-century environment in which Jesus lived and ministered. But many of these same historians simultaneously reject the historicity of any of the miracles described in the New Testament, in spite of the fact that these miracles are described alongside the events that scholars accept as historical. Why do they accept some events and reject others? Because they have a presuppositional bias against the supernatural.

This hindered Wallace’s own exploration of Christianity:

I began the investigation as a naturalist with the presupposition that nothing exists beyond natural laws, forces, and material objects. I was asking the question “Does a supernatural being exist?” after first excluding the possibility of anything supernatural.

But the goal isn’t to get to the place where you have no presuppositions at all. Wallace determined to apply this to his examination of Christianity.

If I was going to learn the truth about the existence of a miraculous God, I needed to at least lay down my presuppositions about the miraculous. . . . [That] means that I am open to following the evidence wherever it leads, even if it points to the existence of a miraculous designer.

Chapter 2: Learn How to “Infer”

When investigating suspicious deaths, Wallace and his peers used the following:

A methodology known as abductive reasoning (also known as “inferring to the most reasonable explanation”) in order to determine what we had at this scene. We collected all the evidential data and made a mental list of the raw facts. We then developed a list of the possible explanations that might account for the scene in general. Finally, we compared the evidence to the potential explanations and determined which explanation was, in fact, the most reasonable inference in light of the evidence.

It’s vital for investigators of any kind to avoid speculation and to stick to explanations that have a high degree of reasonableness.

To guide his own abductive reasoning—when investigating crimes or anything spiritual—Wallace sticks to the following guidelines:

1. 1. The truth must be feasible and viable. For example, he reduced the set of suspects by crossing from his list those with confirmed alibis.
2. 2. The truth will usually be straightforward and simple. He looked for the explanation or suspect that most simply fits the evidence.
3. 3. The truth should be exhaustive. The explanation or suspect that accounts for most or all of the evidence is typically the right one.
4. 4. The truth must be logical and consistent. The right explanation will make sense once you understand the motives or reasoning.
5. 5. The truth will be superior. One suspect or explanation will fit the evidence far better than any of the alternatives.

These criteria can be used to investigate even two-millennia-old cold cases.

Now it’s time to apply this form of reasoning to a death scene that has been the topic of discussion for over two thousand years. What happened to Jesus of Nazareth? How can we explain His empty tomb? Did His disciples steal His body? Was He only injured on the cross and later recovered? Did He actually die and resurrect from the dead? We can approach these questions as detectives, using abductive reasoning.

Wallace first created a list of the claims about Jesus that are most widely substantiated by both allies and foes of Christianity:

1. 1. Jesus died on the cross and was buried.
2. 2. Jesus’ tomb was empty and no one ever produced His body.
3. 3. Jesus’ disciples believed they saw Jesus resurrected from the dead.
4. 4. Jesus’ disciples were transformed following their alleged resurrection observations.

Wallace then made a list of the historical explanations for these claims that have been suggested by believers and skeptics alike.

1. 1. The disciples were wrong about Jesus’ death.
2. 2. The disciples lied about the resurrection.
3. 3. The disciples were delusional.
4. 4. The disciples were fooled by an imposter.
5. 5. The disciples were influenced by limited spiritual sightings.
6. 6. The disciples’ observations were later distorted.
7. 7. The disciples accurately reported the resurrection of Jesus.

Each possible explanation has benefits and problems.

Problem 1: The Theory That the Disciples Were Wrong about Jesus’ Death

Is it reasonable to believe that those who removed Jesus from the cross, took possession of His body, carried Him to t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Main Idea
• Section 1: Learn to Be a Detective
• Section 2: Examine the Evidence