J. Warner Wallace - Alive: A Cold-Case Approach To The Resurrection

CONTENTS

ALIVE

Published by David C Cook

4050 Lee Vance View

Colorado Springs, CO 80918 U.S.A.

David C Cook Distribution Canada

55 Woodslee Avenue, Paris, Ontario, Canada N3L 3E5

David C Cook U.K., Kingsway Communications

Eastbourne, East Sussex BN23 6NT, England

The graphic circle C logo is a registered trademark of David C Cook.

All rights reserved. No part of this ebook may be reproduced, scanned, resold, or distributed by or through any print or electronic medium without written permission from the publisher. This ebook is licensed solely for the personal and noncommercial use of the original authorized purchaser, subject to the terms of use under which it was purchased. Please do not participate in or encourage piracy of copyrighted materials in violation of the authors rights.

The website addresses recommended throughout this book are offered as a resource to you. These websites are not intended in any way to be or imply an endorsement on the part of David C Cook, nor do we vouch for their content.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible, Copyright 1960, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. (www.Lockman.org.)

ISBN 978-0-7814-1119-6

eISBN 978-0-7814-1128-8

2014 J. Warner Wallace

Published in association with the literary agency of Mark Sweeney and Associates, 28540 Altessa Way, Apt. 201, Bonita Springs, FL 34135.

Portions of Alive have been taken from Cold-Case Christianity , published by David C Cook in 2013 J. Warner Wallace, ISBN 978-1-4347-0469-6

The Team: Don Pape, John Blase, Renada Arens, Caitlyn Carlson, Nick Lee, Karen Athen.

Cover Design: Amy Konyndyk

Cover Images: Shutterstock

First Edition 2014

ALIVE

INVESTIGATING THE RESURRECTION

I was a committed atheist when I first heard a pastor preach a sermon that described the resurrection of Jesus. This pastor seemed to actually believe Jesus rose from the dead and was still alive today. I assumed it was just another example of blind faith; another well-intentioned church leader believing something for which he had no supporting evidence. Worse yet, I suspected he possessed an unreasonable faith and trusted something in spite of the evidence.

I was familiar with the rules of evidence and the process by which we can determine the truth about past events. As a detective, I was doing this for a living. I decided to investigate the resurrection as I would any unsolved case from the distant past. My journey led me out of atheism to the truth of Christianity. As I applied my skills as a detective, I became more convinced that the New Testament gospel accounts reliably describe the life, ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. I bet youll come to the same conclusion if you take the time to examine the evidence and the explanations offered for the resurrection of Jesus.

THINKING LIKE A DETECTIVE

As a detective, I often employ a methodology known as abductive reasoning (also known as inferring to the most reasonable explanation) in order to determine what I have at a crime scene. I collect all the evidential data and make a mental list of the raw facts. I develop a list of the possible explanations that might account for the scene in general. Finally, I compare the evidence to the potential explanations and determine which explanation is, in fact, the most reasonable inference in light of the evidence.

As it turns out, detectives arent the only people who use abductive reasoning in an effort to figure out what really happened. Historians, scientists, and all the rest of us (regardless of vocation or avocation) have experience as detectives. In fact, most of us have become accomplished investigators as a matter of necessity and practice, and weve been employing abductive reasoning without giving it much thought.

I had a partner once who gave me a bit of parental advice. Dave was a few years older than I was, and he had been working patrol for many years. He was a seasoned and salty officer, streetwise, cynical, and infinitely practical. He had two children who were already married when mine were still in high school. He was full of sage advice (along with some other stuff).

Jim, let me tell ya something about kids. I love my two boys. I remember when they were in high school and used to go out with their friends on the weekends. I would stay up late and wait for them to come home. As soon as they walked in the door I would get up off the couch and give them a big hug.

This struck me as a bit odd, given what I knew about Dave. He seldom exposed a sensitive side. Wow, Dave, I have to tell you that I dont usually think of you as a touchy-feely kind of guy.

Im not, you moron, Dave said, returning to form. I hug them as tightly as possible so I can get close enough to smell them. Im not a fool. I can tell if theyve been smoking dope or drinking within seconds.

You see, Dave was an evidentialist, and he applied his reasoning skills to his experience as a parent. The smell of alcohol or marijuana would serve as evidence that he would later take into consideration as he was evaluating the possible activities of his children. Dave was thinking abductively. I bet youve done something similar in your role as a parent, a spouse, a son, or a daughter.

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN POSSIBLE AND REASONABLE

All of us have learned the intuitive difference between possible and reasonable. When it comes right down to it, just about anything is possible. You may not even be reading this book right now, even though you think that you are. Its possible that aliens covertly kidnapped you last night and have induced a dreamlike, out-of-body, extraterrestrial hallucination. While you think this experience of reading is real, you may actually wake up tomorrow morning to discover yourself in an alien spaceship. But lets face itthats not reasonable, is it?

While its interesting to imagine the possibilities, its important to return eventually to whats reasonable, especially when the truth is at stake. Thats why judges across the land carefully instruct juries to refrain from what is known as speculation when considering the explanations for what has occurred in a case. Jurors are told that they must use only the evidence that is presented during the trial. They are told to resist the temptation to consider the attorneys opinions about unsupported possibilities and to ignore unsupported speculation whenever they may hear it.

Judges also tell jurors to resist the impulse to stray from the evidence offered and ask questions like What if ? or Isnt it possible that ? when these questions are driven by evidentially unsupported speculation. They must instead limit themselves to whats reasonable in light of the evidence that has been presented to them.

In the end, our criminal courts place a high standard on reasonableness, and thats important as we think about the process of abductive reasoning. This rational approach to determining truth will help us come to the most reasonable conclusion in light of the evidence. It can be applied to more than criminal cases; we can apply the process of abduction to our spiritual investigations as well. But first, lets examine the concept with a real-life example from the world of homicide investigations.

ABDUCTIVE REASONING AND DEAD GUYS

Lets use the example of another death scene to fully illustrate the process. You and I have been called out to a dead-body scenea location where a deceased person has been discovered and the circumstances seem rather suspicious. While scenes like this are sometimes homicides, they are often less sinister; there are a few other explanations. Deaths fall into one of four categories: natural deaths, accidental deaths, suicides, or homicides. Its our job to figure out which of the four explanations is the most reasonable in the following scenario.