This Cold Case video on is the Bible reliable, by examining first the gospels with early writings of Paul, to examining forensically why and how the bible is true. This video is brilliant, and I highly recommend it. Please watch it in it's entirety. It starts out slowly, and begins to examine and explain how all forensic and more importantly circumstantial evidence and investigations, work.
And it explains there are only two types of evidence, direct, and indirect, or circumstantial evidence. And he further in depth explains that circumstantial evidence, without a live witness, or forensic evidence such as DNA, is the best and most reliable evidence. He explains how truly awesome circumstantial evidence is. And the bad reputation circumstantial evidence gets, is only when it is weak and without a lot of evidence. But if you can keep building a case with a lot of good circumstantial evidence, it is then a very strong case indeed.
And it also begins with how he didn't always believe, and with humor says come on, Christianity believes in talking donkeys and talking snakes. And it goes on to explain how police investigations work, etc..,
**** But when it finally gets into examining Christianity, from the early dates of, and witnesses from the gospels, etc.., it gets very strong. He and his wife came to believe - And when he finally gets into it, this video transforms into some of the best apologetics you are likely ever to hear for the gospel and acts.
He takes you from doubt, to how his cold case investigations work, and onto becoming a believer, with some of the best evidence for the truth, and early dates forensically and circumstantially for the Bible and Christianity. It does begin slowly, but when it finally hits the proof for Christianity, Wow. He shows by a cumulative circumstantial evidence investigation, or a death by a thousand papercuts against not believing, to how he proves Christianity is true :)
He is very personable, and as such is a good lecturer. However it drives me a bit crazy on how slowly he gets into the heart of the matter on proving the bible is true. But there is a method to his madness. He sets you up with the mind of a sceptic, as he and his wife were, and then slams down on you like a hammer why the evidence shows the Bible is true. About 20 to 26 minutes into the video he discusses how to treat witnesses. He informs you, in police cases which have reached court, on how you can not trust witnesses, because witnesses will burn you. So he doesn't mind if you are sceptical of the gospel witnesses.
But then he begins to hit you with your first set up on the witness, by describing how one has to test witnesses, and how to apply that to the bible. He lets you know this is a cold case, because the witnesses, the authors of the gospels are dead. But he shows you how those witnesses still can be tested, and in doing so, how he and his wife became believers.
And then starting at about just 26 minutes into the lecture, after he has set you up with his early teases, he begins to discuss with his time line graphics, are the gospels and acts really reliable witnesses? He then mentions the council of Laodice begins to look into what were the reliable witnesses they will rely on, and include. Are these the accounts they are going to include as reliable witnesses? And as the council was 330 years after the events, that's a lot of time, were these indeed reliable witnesses?
At about 26:07 he hits you with that's a lot of time, were these reliable witnesses? As a Sceptic, he never believed these were reliable witnesses. He believed they were written late, well after the events, and therefore were fiction written well after the events in question,
And then so as an investigator, began to examine them circumstantially, very closely so, and he was absolutely blown away with what he found. He also said if you were going to lie about Jesus, you are going to want to do so late, well after the events, and as a sceptic had believed they were fiction, again, written well after the events in question.
And so he began to examine them circumstantially, and was absolutely blown away with what he found. And as he had explained if you were going to lie about Jesus, you were going to want to do so late, so no one around at the actual times involved could challenge you. But he says but that is not what the evidence showed.
And then at about 28 minutes in, after discussing the false criticisms of Bart Ehrman, and how Ehrman accused forgers and liars of manufacturing all of the accounts, and therefore how Jesus became God over time. But Ehrman was wrong.
And again just after about 28 minutes in, he began to slam the hammer down, and demonstrated early dates for them all. He asks in Luke writing Acts, why didn't he mention the destruction of the Temple? It was only the single biggest event of the era ( if one discounts Christianity as a sceptic. ) So why not mention the destruction of the Temple? Jesus even predicted it? So why was Acts, then Luke and the rest of the gospels all silent on the destruction of the Temple? John was written late, but followed the witness of events as reported in the other gospels.
He then goes on to ask why doesn't Acts mention the deaths of James the brother of Jesus, or Peter, or Paul? Acts mentions other deaths? Because Acts and the gospels were all written early. Then he asks why do the gospels contradict each other on minor details? He says that is good, because you want your witnesses to contradict each other on details, so you know a story, like a crime scene, is not manufactured. And like a real crime scene, they really don't contradict each other when you compare the witnesses. You take any two gospel accounts which contradict each other on fine details, to find they merely reported different details each, which make a composite witness account that adds up. Forgeries wouldn't have done that, and couldn[t do that so well, etc.., etc.., etc..,
He then goes on to mention lots of other circumstantial and forensic evidence for early dates, and further authenticity as well, such as location names, and person names as well. The gospels are correctly filled with all kinds of local place names, while the fake gnostic gospels from Egypt, mention Jerusalem, and that's about it, because they didn't know the local place names in Palestine. And likewise the gnostic gospels out of Egypt, get the local Palestinian Jewish names wrong, knowing only names used in Egypt at the time, while the gospels get all of the Jewish names from Palestine at the time correct, etc..,
The video is based on his same cold case Christianity book. The book likewise starts out slow, and a bit boring as well. But when it finally gets into it's evidence for Christianity, wow. So even though it likewise starts out slow, I truly highly recommend the book as well. Once seeing the video, you can skip the early parts of the book, and dig right into the evidence for the truth of Christianity, if you'd like a hard copy of the best evidence as presented in the video lecture.
God Bless
And it explains there are only two types of evidence, direct, and indirect, or circumstantial evidence. And he further in depth explains that circumstantial evidence, without a live witness, or forensic evidence such as DNA, is the best and most reliable evidence. He explains how truly awesome circumstantial evidence is. And the bad reputation circumstantial evidence gets, is only when it is weak and without a lot of evidence. But if you can keep building a case with a lot of good circumstantial evidence, it is then a very strong case indeed.
And it also begins with how he didn't always believe, and with humor says come on, Christianity believes in talking donkeys and talking snakes. And it goes on to explain how police investigations work, etc..,
**** But when it finally gets into examining Christianity, from the early dates of, and witnesses from the gospels, etc.., it gets very strong. He and his wife came to believe - And when he finally gets into it, this video transforms into some of the best apologetics you are likely ever to hear for the gospel and acts.
He takes you from doubt, to how his cold case investigations work, and onto becoming a believer, with some of the best evidence for the truth, and early dates forensically and circumstantially for the Bible and Christianity. It does begin slowly, but when it finally hits the proof for Christianity, Wow. He shows by a cumulative circumstantial evidence investigation, or a death by a thousand papercuts against not believing, to how he proves Christianity is true :)
He is very personable, and as such is a good lecturer. However it drives me a bit crazy on how slowly he gets into the heart of the matter on proving the bible is true. But there is a method to his madness. He sets you up with the mind of a sceptic, as he and his wife were, and then slams down on you like a hammer why the evidence shows the Bible is true. About 20 to 26 minutes into the video he discusses how to treat witnesses. He informs you, in police cases which have reached court, on how you can not trust witnesses, because witnesses will burn you. So he doesn't mind if you are sceptical of the gospel witnesses.
But then he begins to hit you with your first set up on the witness, by describing how one has to test witnesses, and how to apply that to the bible. He lets you know this is a cold case, because the witnesses, the authors of the gospels are dead. But he shows you how those witnesses still can be tested, and in doing so, how he and his wife became believers.
And then starting at about just 26 minutes into the lecture, after he has set you up with his early teases, he begins to discuss with his time line graphics, are the gospels and acts really reliable witnesses? He then mentions the council of Laodice begins to look into what were the reliable witnesses they will rely on, and include. Are these the accounts they are going to include as reliable witnesses? And as the council was 330 years after the events, that's a lot of time, were these indeed reliable witnesses?
At about 26:07 he hits you with that's a lot of time, were these reliable witnesses? As a Sceptic, he never believed these were reliable witnesses. He believed they were written late, well after the events, and therefore were fiction written well after the events in question,
And then so as an investigator, began to examine them circumstantially, very closely so, and he was absolutely blown away with what he found. He also said if you were going to lie about Jesus, you are going to want to do so late, well after the events, and as a sceptic had believed they were fiction, again, written well after the events in question.
And so he began to examine them circumstantially, and was absolutely blown away with what he found. And as he had explained if you were going to lie about Jesus, you were going to want to do so late, so no one around at the actual times involved could challenge you. But he says but that is not what the evidence showed.
And then at about 28 minutes in, after discussing the false criticisms of Bart Ehrman, and how Ehrman accused forgers and liars of manufacturing all of the accounts, and therefore how Jesus became God over time. But Ehrman was wrong.
And again just after about 28 minutes in, he began to slam the hammer down, and demonstrated early dates for them all. He asks in Luke writing Acts, why didn't he mention the destruction of the Temple? It was only the single biggest event of the era ( if one discounts Christianity as a sceptic. ) So why not mention the destruction of the Temple? Jesus even predicted it? So why was Acts, then Luke and the rest of the gospels all silent on the destruction of the Temple? John was written late, but followed the witness of events as reported in the other gospels.
He then goes on to ask why doesn't Acts mention the deaths of James the brother of Jesus, or Peter, or Paul? Acts mentions other deaths? Because Acts and the gospels were all written early. Then he asks why do the gospels contradict each other on minor details? He says that is good, because you want your witnesses to contradict each other on details, so you know a story, like a crime scene, is not manufactured. And like a real crime scene, they really don't contradict each other when you compare the witnesses. You take any two gospel accounts which contradict each other on fine details, to find they merely reported different details each, which make a composite witness account that adds up. Forgeries wouldn't have done that, and couldn[t do that so well, etc.., etc.., etc..,
He then goes on to mention lots of other circumstantial and forensic evidence for early dates, and further authenticity as well, such as location names, and person names as well. The gospels are correctly filled with all kinds of local place names, while the fake gnostic gospels from Egypt, mention Jerusalem, and that's about it, because they didn't know the local place names in Palestine. And likewise the gnostic gospels out of Egypt, get the local Palestinian Jewish names wrong, knowing only names used in Egypt at the time, while the gospels get all of the Jewish names from Palestine at the time correct, etc..,
The video is based on his same cold case Christianity book. The book likewise starts out slow, and a bit boring as well. But when it finally gets into it's evidence for Christianity, wow. So even though it likewise starts out slow, I truly highly recommend the book as well. Once seeing the video, you can skip the early parts of the book, and dig right into the evidence for the truth of Christianity, if you'd like a hard copy of the best evidence as presented in the video lecture.
God Bless
Last edited:
